# 

Q. 

.^ 

.!5 

^ 

3 

^    • 

4) 

:           ' 

,1,^ 

'^ 

'\ 

SZ              H^ 

Q. 

: 

w 

•s.     ^ 

o 

ts 

$ 

"S     g 

<L> 

C 

w         o 

bi) 

fS 

*25            EH 

:3 

|Zi 

E 

.§ 

<^                M 

Cj 

•S 

^          Ph 

CO 

1^ 

i 

O 

^ 

5 

^ 

-a 

^' 

% 

c 

^ 

^ 

(U 

1 

^ 

CL 

^ 

■  ..._   1 

S^:^B 


/  V 


to 


SPRINKLING, 


THE 


ONLY  MODE  OP  BAPTISM 

MADE  KNOWN  IN  THE  SCRIPTURES; 


AND 


THE  SCRIPTURE  WARRANT 


FOR 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


BY 


ABSALOM  Meters,  d.  d. 


<  *  • » » 


ALBANY: 

PUBLISHED  BY  E.  H.  PEASE  &  CO. 

1848, 


Entered  according  to  act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1848, 

BY  ABSALOM  PETERS, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  for  the  District  of  Massachusetts. 


J.    MUNSELL,    PRINTER, 
ALBANY. 


^^■ 


DEDICATION,  %j^^_^. 


To  the  First  and  Second  Congregational 
Churches  in  Williamstown  and  to  the  Faculty  and 
Students  of  Williams  College  —  the  very  gene- 
ral expression  of  whose  favorable  opinion  of  the 
substance  of  the  following  treatise,  as  recently 
presented  in  the  pulpits  of  these  churches,  has 
induced  him  to  prepare  it  for  publication  —  this 
little  volume  is  most  affectionately  and  respect* 
fully  dedicated,  with  every  feeling  of  interest, 
and  of  Christian  fellowship, 

By  their  Friend  and  Servant, 
In  the  Ministry  of  the  Gospel, 

A.  PETERS. 
Williamstovm,  Mass.,  June,  1848. 


. ;-. ''.',  '*  *•>. 


I* 

A  WORD  TO  THE  READER. 


In  preparing  this  work,  it  has  been  my  object  to 
fui-nish  a  book  adapted  to  be  read  and  understood  by 
our  church  members  generally ;  at  once  so  small,  that 
any  one  may  afford  to  purchase  it  —  so  brief,  as  not 
to  be  wearisome  —  and  so  arranged  as  to  present  the 
subjects  discussed,  in  then-  proper  order,  and  with 
clearness,  to  the  mind  of  the  reader.  It  is  designed 
as  a  candid,  dkect  and  intelligible  exposition  of  the 
Scripture  Doctrine  of  Christian  Baptism,  in  respect  to 
its  nature,  mode  and  subjects. 

Such  a  work  may  appear  to  some  to  have  been  un- 
called for.  Scores  of  books  and  pamphlets  have 
been  published,  on  Baptism,  some  of  them  of  great 
ability ;  and  much  learning  has  been  expended  on  the 
subject.  But  the  controversy  respecting  the  mode  of 
baptism  has  been  thrown  into  no  little  confusion  by 
false  issues  in  argument,  and  by  a  range  of  learned 
discussion,  often,  the  tendency  of  which  has  been  to 
bewilder  the  inquirer  after  truth,  while  the  confidence 
with  which  immersionists  are  accustomed  to  claun  the 

1* 


VI  WOUD  TO  THE  READER. 

express  sanction  of  scripture,  has  led  many  to  doubt, 
whether,  after  all,  the  Baptists  may  not  be  the  nearest 
right,  if  they  would  only  give  up  then-  close  com- 
munion. 

It  seemed  important,  therefore,  to  disembarrass  the 
simple  teachings  of  the  Bible  from  the  incumbering 
arguments  which  hare  been  so  generally  urged  in  its 
aid,  and  to  arm  the  common  mind  in  our  churches 
for  the  defence  of  the  scriptm-al  mode  of  baptism, 
practiced  by  all  Protestants,  excepting  a  single  deno- 
mination. We  have  accordingly  made  the  Bible  its 
own  mterpreter. 

The  arguments  adduced  in  this  ti-eatise  are  almost 
wholly  scriptural  and  didactic,  with  as  little  to  do  with 
controversy,  as  the  nature  of  the  subject  and  a  proper 
defence  of  the  truth  has  seemed  to  allow. 

Similar  principles  have  been  adopted  m  the  argu- 
ment for  Infant  Baptism, 

Should  this  undertaking  meet  the  favor  which  it 
humbly  craves,  and  sen^e  to  strengthen  the  faith  of 
such  as  already  adopt  substantially  the  positions  here 
defended  —  confirm  the  wavering,  convince  the  doubt- 
ing, or  guide  the  honest  inquher  to  the  truth,  on  the 
much  controverted  subjects  here  discussed  —  it  will 
fiilfil  the  hopes  and  answer  the  prayers  of 

THE  AUTHOR, 


A  COMMENDATORY  RESOLUTION, 


While  preparing  for  publication,  I  took  occasion  to 
present  the  ai'gument  contained  in  Part  I.,  at  a  meet- 
ing of  the  "  Berkshire  Association,"  who  have  kindly 
furnished  the  following  expression  of  favor,  viz : 

"  The  Rev,  Dr.  Peters  preached  the  Associationai 
Sermon,  fi-om  Matt  28  :  19,  and  after  criticism,  the 
followmg  preamble  and  resolution  were  unanimously 


"  The  Association  having  listened  with  great  inter 
est  to  the  argument  of  Dr.  Peters  on  the   Mode  oj 
Baptism,  and  deeming  his  views  original  and  impor- 
tant, and  a  'short  method'  of  settlmg  this  question; 
therefore 

"  Resolved,  That  Dr.  Peters  be  requested  to  publish 
his  views  on  this  subject,  in  such  form  as  he  shall 
judge  best. 

"  A  true  copy  fi-om  the  minutes, 

"Attest, 

Sesshns  of  the  Berkshire  Association, 
Oixat  Barrins;ton,  June  6, 1848. 


\ 


'<  ^% 


v 


CONTENT^.H^^^ 


PART    I. 

SPKINEXING  THE  ONLY  MODE  OF  BAPTISM  MADE 
KNOWN  IN  THE    SCPvIPTUKES. 

SECTION  I. 

General  remarks  on  the  institution  of  baptism,  as 
a  Christian  Sacrament,  and  the  controversy  re- 
specting it,  ___---        13 

SECTION  n. 

The  conti-oversy  stated — Meaning  of  haptizo,  as 
used  to  designate  the  Christian  ordinance  of 
baptism — The  Greek  plow,  -        -        -        20 

SECTION  m. 

Scriptm*e  illustrations  of  the  meaning  of  the  word 
haptism,  independent  of  the  mode  of  its  ad- 
ministration, and  of  sprinklmg,  as  the  only 
mode  of  baptism  made  known  in  the  Bible,        36 


X  CONTENTS. 

SECTION  rv. 

Hie  nature  and  design  of  John's  baptism,  and  of 
the  baptism  of  our  Saviour  by  John,    ^        -        51 

SECTION  V, 

All  the  questions  on  the  mode  of  baptism  re- 
duced to  one — The  water  applied  to  the  per- 
son, and  not  the  person  to  the  water,  -        59 

SECTION  VI. 

The  mode  of  John's  baptism,        -        -  -        68 

SECTION  vn. 

Prophecies  intimating  the  mode  of  Christian  bap- 
tism— The  baptism  of  the  Spirit,        -  -        78 

SECTION  vm. 

Historical  illustrations  of  the  mode  of  baptism, 
as  it  was  administered  by  the  apostles — The 
Greek  particles  translated  into  and  out  of,    -        84 

1.  The  baptism  of  three  thousand  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  _        -        _        _        _  -        84 

*<i.  The  baptism  of  the  Eunuch  and  of  Christ,  89 

SECTION  IX. 

Historical  illustrations  of  the  mode  of  baptism, 

as  administered  by  the  apostles —  Continued,  99 

3.  The  baptism  of  the  apostle  Paul,      -        -  99 

4  The  baptism  of  Cornelius  axad  his  fi'iends,  99 


CONTENTS,  aa. 

5.  The  baptism  of  Lydia  and  her  household,        101 

6.  The  case  of  the  jailer  and  his  family,        -        102 

7.  Two  other  instances,        ^        -        -        -        105 

SECTION  X. 

Recapitulation — Figurative  expressions  concern'^ 
ing  baptism — Conclusion  of  the  argument,        107 

SECTION  XI. 

Origin  of  the  mode  of  baptism  by  immersion — 
The  Bible  does  not  make  the  mode  essential, 
yet  important — A  concession — The  great  error 
of  tlie  Baptists,  -        -        -        -        -        114 


PART    II. 

THE  SCRIPTURE  WARRANT  FOR  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

SECTION  I. 

The  meaning  of  our  Saviour's  command,  (Matt. 
28: 19,)  in  respect  to  the  subjects  of  baptism — 
Proselyte  baptism,     -        -        -        -        -        131 

SECTION  n. 

In  all  the  covenants  of  God  w^ith  men,  children 
jire  mcluded  with  their  parents.         "        -        140 


Xll  CONTENTS. 

SECTION  m. 

The  Church  the  same  under  the  Jewish  and 
Chiistian  dispensations,     -        -        -        ^        144 

SECTION  IV. 

Baptism  the  substitute  for  ckcumcision,        -        149 

SECTION  V. 

The  example  and  practice  of  the  apostles  in  re- 
spect to  Infant  Baptism,     -         -        -        -         162 

SECTION  VI. 

Testimony  of  early  Christians,  and  of  histoiy — 
Origin  of  the  Baptist  denomination — Conclud- 
ing remarks,      - 168 


PART  I. 

SPRINKLING   THE    ONLY  MODE   OF  BAPTISM 
MADE  KNOWN  IN  THE  SCRIPTURES.* 


SECTION  I. 

GENERAL  REMARKS  ON  THE  INSTITUTION  OF  BAPTISM, 
AS  A  CHRISTIAN  SACRAMENT,  AND  THE  CONTRO- 
VERSY RESPECTING  IT. 

The  last  command  of  our  Saviour  to  his 
disciples  was  addressed  to  them,  after  his  re- 

*  I  use  the  word  sprinJding,  in  preference  to  asper- 
sion, affusion,  or  poming,  because  it  is  a  more  familiar 
word,  in  common  parlance,  and  is  used  in  scripture, 
to  express  the  mode  of  baptism,  as  it  is  generally 
practised.  It  is  also  a  better  translation  of  the  Greek 
word  pavriPc^  (j-antizo)  in  the  Septuagint,  and  as  used 
by  the  Apostle  (Heb.  9 :  13)  in  reference  to  the  "  di- 
vers washings"  {baptisms)  prescribed  under  the  law. 
I  wish  it  ta  be  understood,  however,  that  I  mean  by 
this  word  any  application  of  water  to  the  subject  of 
baptism,  in  larger  or  smaller  quantities,  according  to 
the  original  signification  of  rantizo,  which  is  to  pour 
aU  over ;  to  wet ;  to  besprinkle. 


14  BAPTISM 

surrection,  when  having  finished  his  personal 
ministry  on  earth,  he  was  about  to  ascend  his 
throne.  The  occasion  was  solemn  and  memo- 
rable. "  Then  the  eleven  disciples  went  away 
into  Galilee,  into  a  mountain  where  Jesus  had 
appointed  them.  And  when  they  saw  him,  they 
worshipped  him;  but  some  doubted.  And  Jesus 
came  and  spake  unto  them,  saying,  All  jjower  is 
given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth  ;  Go  ye 
therefore  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them 

IN  THE  NAME  OF  THE  FaTHER,  AND  OF  THE  SoN,  AND 

OF  THE  Holy  Ghost;  Teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you; 
and  lo,  I  am  with  yoic  alway,  even  unto  the  end 
of  the  world.''  (Mat.  28:  16-20.)  This  com- 
mand is  recorded  by  another  Evangelist  in  dif- 
ferent words:  "And  he  said  unto  them,  Go  ye 
into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every 
creature.     He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized, 

SHALL  BE  saved  ;  BUT  HE  THAT  BELIEVETH  NOT, 

SHALL  BE  DAMNED."     (Mark  16:    15,  16.) 

These  passages  contain  the  only  recorded  in- 
stitution of  Christian  baptism.  The  disciples,  it 
is  true,  had  before  this  baptized.  But  there  is 
no  proof  that  they  had  done  so  in  the  form. which 


INSTITUTED.  15 

is  here  prescribed,  and  no  evidence  that  the 
Saviour  had  before  required  baptism  to  be  per- 
formed in  the  use  of  these  words.  In  his  last 
command,  therefore,  as  recorded  in  the  above 
passages,  is  contained  the  whole  of  our  direct 
authority,  from  Christ  himself,  for  the  adminis- 
tration of  this  ordinance.  Here  Christian  bap- 
tism was  instituted.  This  is  our  only  Divine 
warrant  to  baptize  "  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'' 

This  command,  to  baptize,  no  doubt,  has  a  de- 
finite meaning — a  meaning  w^hich  was  under- 
stood by  those  to  whom  it  was  primarily  ad- 
dressed, and  which  ought  to  be  understood  by 
us.  And  yet  it  is  expressed  in  the  fewest  words 
possible.  It  is  accompanied  with  no  commen- 
tary, no  explanation  of  the  words.  It  means, 
just  what  the  words  meant,  then  and  there.  And 
the  very  brevity  of  the  expressions,  and  the  inci- 
dental manner,  in  which  the  duty  is  inculcated 
in  the  command,  indicate  that  there  must  have 
been,  present  to  the  minds  of  the  apostles,  cir- 
cumstances and  considerations  which  rendered 
the  words  perfectly  intelligible  to  them.  They 
accordingly  received  the  command,  asking  no 


16  BAPTISM 

explanations,  and  went  forth  in  obedience  to  it, 
and  administered  baptism  to  their  disciples. 

It  should  also  be  remarked,  that  the  adminis- 
tration of  this  ordinance,  in  the  time  of  the 
apostles,  being  a  matter  of  visible  practice,  the 
mode  of  it  was  of  course  seen  and  understood 
by  those  who  received  it.  It  seems  indeed  to 
have  been  understood  alike  by  the  primitive 
disciples.  Hence  we  hear  of  no  dispute  or  divi- 
sion among  them  concerning  it.  They  either 
agreed  in  a  particular  mode,  which  they  under- 
stood to  be  embraced  in  the  meaning  of  the  com- 
mand, or  they  regarded  the  sjnrit  of  the  institu- 
tion as  alone  essential,  and  felt  at  liberty  to  vary 
the  mode  to  meet  circumstances  and  occasions. 
Accordingly  there  was  no  need  of  any  explana- 
tion, to  them,  of  the  mode  of  the  ordinance.  The 
visible  practice  of  the  thing,  which  they  called 
baptism,  explained  itself,  in  this  respect. 

But  there  have  come  dark  ages  over  the  church 
and  the  world.  Scarcely  had  the  apostles  been 
laid  in  their  graves,  when  a  fancy  began  to  pre- 
vail, that  there  was  a  cleansing  power  in  water 
baptism.  The  strange  notion  of  ''bapiism^l 
regeneration  "  was  early  imbibed  by  professing 


INSTITUTED.  17 ' 

Christians,  and  a  mode  of  baptism  was  no  doubt 
adopted,  to  imply  and  perpetuate  that  idea. 
Forms  and  ceremonies  were  soon  introduced 
from  heathen  worship,  and  monstrous  abuses 
were  practised,  which  continue  to  the  present 
day,  both  in  the  Romish  and  Greek  churches. 
The  spirit  of  the  institution  was  buried  and  lost 
under  the  accumulation  of  its  borrowed  accom- 
paniments. The  leaders  of  the  Protestant  Re- 
formation, therefore,  have  found  it  necessary  to 
go  back  to  the  Bible,  to  recover  the  original 
meaning  of  this  and  other  ordinances  of  the 
gospel. 

For  reasons,  however,  which  I  have  already 
intimated,  the  import  of  the  Saviour's  brief  com- 
mand on  this  subject,  is  not  so  readily  appre- 
hended by  us  as  by  the  primitive  disciples.  The 
single  word  fSair-n^uj,  [baptizo,)  which  defines 
the  ordinance,  is  not,  with  us,  vernacular,  and 
we  are  far  removed  from  the  usages  of  those 
times  in  our  personal  experience.  We  labor, 
therefore,  under  some  disadvantages  in  our  en- 
deavors to  ascertain  the  precise  truth,  as  to  the 
original  mode  of  this  ordinance.  Yet  the  insti- 
tution, in  its  primitive  purity,  is  deemed  so  ira- 


18  BAPTISM 

portant,  that  learning  and  ignorance,  simple 
piety  and  sectarian  zeal  have  all  been  deeply 
and  perseveringly  engaged  in  its  investigation. 

The  sad  result  is  a  controversy,  wide-spread 
among  evangelical  Christians,  as  to  the  mode  in 
which  we  are  required  to  fulfil  this  last  command 
of  our  Saviour.  And  what  is  still  more  sad, 
principles  have  been  adopted  by  some  parties, 
which  have  divided  the  church,  and  broken  her 
visible  communion. 

In  such  a  state  of  things,  if  there  be  any  key 
to  the  discovery  of  the  root  of  this  evil,  any 
principle  which  may  promise  to  restore  the  body 
of  the  faithful  to  its  primitive  unity,  surely  every 
conscientious  Christian  will  rejoice  to  find  it. 
At  least  every  one  rightly  affected  on  this  sub- 
ject, will  see  to  it,  that  he  is  not  himself,  through 
ignorance  of  the  Saviour's  command,  a  schis- 
matic, or  an  occasion  of  divisions  among  the 
people  of  God. 

In  what  mode,  then,  did  the  apostles  under- 
stand that  they  were  to  obey  the  command  of 
Christ,  to  baptize?  To  answer  this  question 
satisfactorily,  we  must  place  ourselves,  as  far  as 
possible,  in  their  circumstances,  and  look  out 


INSTITUTED  19 

upon  the  truths  and  usages,  which  must  have 
controlled  their  perception  of  the  meaning  of 
the  words  and  things  embraced  in  this  command. 


SECTION  II. 

THE  CONTROVERSY  STATED — MEANING  OF  THE  WORD 
BoiirnPo)  (bAPTIZO,)  AND  ITS  DERIVATIVES,  AS 
USED  TO  DESIGNATE  THE  CHRISTIAN  ORDINANCE 
OF  BAPTISM. 

Our  Baptist  brethren  maintain  strenuously 
that  the  primary  classical  meaning  of  the  word 
i^a-TTTj^w  (baptizo,)  is  to  immerse  or  dip,  and 
that  this  meaning  of  the  word  and  its  deriva- 
tives, used  to  designate  the  ordinance  of  baptism, 
must  control  the  mode  of  its  administration. 
On  this  ground,  principan}^  they  contend  that 
immersion,  and  nothing  else  is  baptism.*     I  say, 

*^The  proportion  of  the  Christian  world,  who  prac- 
tice immersion  or  submersion,  is  very  small.  Of  the 
sixty  or  seventy  millions  of  Protestants  of  all  denomi- 
nations in  the  world,  probably  not  a  fiftieth  part 
have  been  baptized  in  this  way.  Dr.  Kurtz,  of  the 
Lutheran  Church,  says,  "  probably  not  one-sixtieth  part 
practice  submersion."  All  the  rest  administer  bap- 
tism by  aspersion  or  sprinkling. 

T  mention  this  fact  rather  as  a  matter  of  information, 


Meaning  of  baptizo.  SI 

on  this  ground  ^principally ,  because,  though  many 
other  topics  of  argument  are  put  forth  in  their 
writings,  I  think  it  will  be  made  apparent,  in 

ihan  as  an  argument ;  and  since  our  Baptist  brethren 
sometimes  claim  the  practice  of  the  Greek  church  in 
favor  of  their  mode  of  baptism,  it  may  be  proper  here  to 
j-emark,  that  the  Greek  chm'ch  maintain  that  trine  im- 
rtmsion — plunging  three  times — is  absolutely  neces- 
sary. After  these  immersions,  they  sprinlcle  the  sub- 
ject with  water.  They  cannot  be  clahned,  therefore, 
as  the  exclusive  supporters  of  either  mode,  while  the 
Roman  Catholic  church,  whose  example  is  quite  as 
worthy  of  imitation,  practice  only  sprinkling,  so  far  as 
water  is  used.  But  these  are  both  idolatrous  churches, 
whose  practices  have  no  authorit}^  with  us. 

I  may  add,  that  even  among  Protestants,  who  prac- 
tice immersion,  the  ^^Tunkers^^ — Dippers,  usually  called 
Dunkards — insist  on  an  entire  triple  immersion,  by  a 
forward  motion  of  the  body,  while  Alexander  Camp- 
bell, the  leader  of  the  Camphellites,  a  somewhat  nu- 
merous sect  in  our  Western  States,  judges  this  mode 
to  be  nugatory,  inasmuch  as  it  does  not,  in  his  opinion, 
resemble  the  burial  of  Chi'ist.  "  We  must  dip,"  he 
says,  "  only  once,  and  the  motion  must  be  backwards.^ 
But  while  these  conflicting  opmions  exist  among  the 
advocates  of  immersion,  there  is  no  dispute  among 
those  who  practice  sprinkling,  as  to  the  precise  mode 
of  its  performance. — Ste  Kurtz  on  Baptism,  p.  158,  fyc. 


22  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

the  course  of  our  discussion,  that  they  are  of  little 
weight  in  comparison  with  this.  This  is  regard- 
ed as  the  main  point  by  our  Baptist  brethren 
themselves.  It  is,  indeed,  the  only  ground,  on 
which  I  can  conceive  that  a  candid  scholar 
would  be  willing  to  take  the  exclusive  position 
assumed  by  the  "  close  communion  Baptists." 

But  the  argument,  on  this  ground,  in  favor  of 
immersion,  derives  all  its  strength  from  a  mis- 
taken assumption  that  it  is  in  point,  when,  in 
fact  it  has  little  or  nothing  to  do  with  the  sub- 
ject. Learned  men,  on  the  Baptist  side  of  this 
controversy,  may  have  thus  been  led,  by  their 
familiarity  with  the  Greek  classics,  to  take  up  a 
false  issue  to  which  they  have  applied  their  philo- 
logy, in  a  manner  very  satisfactory  to  themselves, 
while  prejudiced  men  have  felt  it  incumbent  on 
them  so  to  interpret  the  scripture  expressions 
relating  to  baptism,  as  to  make  them  conform 
to  the  imperious  demands  of  this  philological 
argument.  But  this  argument,  as  I  have  said — 
and  will  now  proceed  to  show — has  little  or  no- 
thing to  do  with  the  subject. 

The  question  in  dispute  can  never  be  settled  by 
proving   the   meaning   of    the   word   (SatTi^u^ 


MEANING    OF    BAPTIZO.  23 

(baptizo)  in  ancient  heathen  Greek,  though  it  is 
easy  to  show,  and  has  been  abundantly  proved 
by  our  best  philologists,  that  the  argument  is  not 
wholly  with  the  Baptists,  even  on  that  score. 
The  word  means  to  tinge,  to  dye,  to  smear,  &c., 
as  well  as  to  immerse.  The  Editor  of  Calmet's 
Dictionary  quotes  some  eighty  examples,  taken 
in  part  from  the  ancient  fathers  and  classical 
writers,  but  mostly  from  the  Bible,  in  every  one 
of  which  the  word  in  question  implies  less  than 
suhmersion,  and  in  most  of  them,  no  more  than 
sprinkling,  moistening,  pouring,  or  staining. 
But  I  leave  that  argument  as  wholly  irrelevant 
to  the  precise  point  of  difference  between  us  and 
our  Baptist  brethren. 

The  true  question  is:  what  was,  and  is,  the 
meaning  of  the  word  baptizo,  as  used  in  the  New 
Testament,  to  desig-nate  the  relio;ious  ordinance 
of  baptism?  Suppose  we  admit — as  we  do  not — 
all  that  the  Baptists  claim,  as  to  the  meaning  of 
baptizo,  or  (Ba'ifrKfp.og  (baptism)  in  heathen  Greek. 
If  it  meant  there  immersion,  and  nothing  else, 
still  that  could  not  govern  its  meaning  as  used 
by  Christ  and  his  apostles  to  designate  an  action 


24  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

which  was  utterly  unknown  to  the  Greeks  of  all 
preceding  ages. 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  the  Greek  lan- 
guage had  never  been  used  to  express  any  of  the 
ideas  of  revealed  religion,  until  the  Jews  were 
conquered  by  the  Greeks  some  three  hundred 
years  before  Christ.*  Until  after  that  time  the 
idea  of  a  religious  ordinance,  or  ceremony,  call- 
ed baptism,  had  never  entered  the  mind  of  a 
Greek.  The  Greek  language  was  as  destitute 
of  any  such  idea,  as  was  the  language  of  the 
Sandwich  Islanders  before  they  were  instructed 
by  our  missionaries.  All  the  ideas  of  the  lan- 
guage, relating  to  religion,  were  heathen  ideas. 
Hence  the  whole  system  of  the  gospel  was  "  to 
the  Greeks  foolishness."  ( 1  Cor.  1 :  23.)  But  the 
Jews,  w^ho  had  before  this  spoken  the  Hebrew 
language,  and  had  the  Old  Testament  scriptures 
in  the  Hebrew — which  was  understood  by  no 
other  nation — being  now  in  subjection  to  the 
Greeks,  found  it  necessary  to  learn  the  Greek 

*The  Jews  submitted  to  the  doniinion  of  the 
Greeks  under  Alexander  the  Great,  who  died  in  the 
year  323  before  Christ  After  this  the  intercourse  of 
the  Jews  with  the  Greeks  was  necessarily  intimate. 


MEANING   OF    BAPTIZO.  '25 

language.  And  before  the  birth  of  the  Saviour, 
they  translated  their  own  scriptures  into  Greek.* 
But  in  expressing  the  truths  of  revealed  religion 
in  their  new  language,  they  were  obliged  to  give 
to  many  of  its  words  a  new  meaning. 

The  word  Tvsu.aa  [pneuma,  spirit)  for  instance, 
in  the  most  ancient  Greek,  meant  wind,  or  hreath, 
and  nothing  further.  But  in  adapting  this  word 
to  express  the  ideas  of  revealed  religion,  the 
sacred  writers  use  it  to  signify  spirit,  as  the  spirit 
of  man,  and  the  Spirit  of  God. 

*  The  translation  here  refeiTed  to  is  that  known  as 
the  Septuagint,  which  Joseplius  and  others  say,  was 
made  under  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  who 
died  247  years  before  Christ ;  and  it  is  generally  ad- 
mitted that  that  translation  existed  before  our  Saviour's 
time,  and  is  quoted  by  him.  It  is  conceded  also  that 
the  Greek  language  was  generally  spoken  in  Pales- 
tine in  the  time  of  Christ,  though  the  Hebrew  was  also 
in  use  among  all  the  Jews.  (>S'6e  Hug^s  art.  on  "  The 
Greek  Language  in  Palestine,''^  Bib.  Repos.  1831,^.  530, 
^c.)  The  Latin  language  was  also  now  spoken  in  Pales- 
tine ;  for  before  this  time — 146  years  B.  C. — the  Ro- 
mans had  conquered  both  the  Greeks  and  Hebrews. 
Hence  the  superscription  on  the  cross  of  Christ  was 
written  "  in  letters  of  Greek,  and  Latin,  and  Hebrew," 
that  all  the  people  might  understand  it. — (Luke  23 :  38.) 


26  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

The  word  ayysXos  (avgelos,  angel,)  in  heathen 
Greek,  signified  simply  a  messenger,  a  person  hy 
whom  news  is  conveyed  ;  and  the  idea  of  a  spirit- 
ual messenger  from  God,  called  angelos,  was 
unknown  to  ihe  Greek  language.  But  the  sacred 
writers  appropriate  this  word  almost  exclusively 
to  the  expression  of  this  idea.  It  means,  in  the 
Bible,  what  it  did  not  mean  in  ancient  Greek,  a 
spiritual  messenger  and,  servant  of  God. 

The  Baptists,  then,  if  they  would  be  consistent 
with  themselves,  in  claiming  a  literal  translation 
of  bapiizo,  according  to  its  heathen  or  secular 
meaning,  must  do  the  same  in  respect  to  the 
words  pneuma  and  angelos.  But  if  they  do  this, 
they  must  read  the  passage,  John  3  :  5,  "Ex- 
cept a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  vnnd, 
[the  Spirit]  he  can  not  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  God;"  and,  John  3:6,  "  That  which  is  born 
of  the  wind  is  wind  /"  And  they  must  make  the 
sacred  writer  declare.  Acts  23  :  8,  that  the 
Saducees  say,  "  there  is  no  resurrection,  neither 
messenger  nor  windl^^  The  same  absurdity 
would  occur  from  the  carrying  out  of  this  prin- 
ciple in  respect  to  many  other  Greek  words,  used 


NAMES  AND  THINGS.  27 

in  the  New  Testament,  to  express  the  peculiar 
ideas  of  revealed  religion.* 

So  Christ  and  his  apostles,  who  were  of  Jew- 
ish lineage,  and  were  familiar  with  all  religious 
ideas,  as  expressed  in  the  Hebrew^  language  of 
their  own  scriptures,  when  they  applied  the  word 
haptizo  to  express  a  religious  ordinance,  gave  to 
the  word  a  neiv  shade  of  meaning,  conformed  to 
the  thiyig  which  it  was  now  intended  to  express. 
But  the  idea  of  this  thing  had  never  entered  the 
mind  of  a  heathen  Greek,  and  until  now  had 

*  Let  it  be  observed,  we  do  not  affirm  that  the  New 
Testament  writers  always  use  the  words  above  refer- 
red to  in  then*  rehgious  sense.  When  they  speak  of 
ordinary  things  in  the  Greek  language,  they  give  to 
its  words  the  meanings  which  they  had  in  common 
use,  before  they  were  appropriated  to  the  expression 
of  religious  ideas.  So  our  Sa\iour,  in  the  same  con- 
versation in  which  he  used  pneuma  to  signify  spirit, 
made  use  of  the  same  word  in  its  primitive  sense 
(John  3  :  8,)  "  The  wind"  {pneuma)  "  bloweth  where 
it  listeth."  The  word  haptizo  is  also  often  used  in 
Scripture  in  its  primitive  sense.  The  principle  which 
we  assert  is,  that  it  always  has  a  peculiar  meaning, 
unknown  to  the  ancient  Greeks,  when  used  to  express 
the  rite  of  baptism. 


28  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

been  unknown  to  the  Greek  language.  It  is 
preposterous,  therefore,  to  determine  the  precise 
mode  of  this  ordinance  from  the  primary  or  pre- 
vious meaning  of  the  Greek  word  used  to  express 
it.  The  meaning  of  an  old  word,  when  it  is  used 
as  the  name  of  a  new  thing,  must  conform  to  the 
things  and  not  the  thing  to  the  name. 

"  No  principle  is  more  universally  admitted  by 
all  sound  philologists,  than  that  to  establish  the 
original  and  primitive  meaning  of  a  word,  is  not 
at  all  decisive  in  respect  to  its  subsequent  usage. 
It  often  aids  only  as  giving  a  clue,  by  which  to 
trace  the  progress  of  the  imagination,  or  the 
association  of  ideas  in  leading  the  mind  from 
meaning  to  meaning,  on  some  ground  of  relative 
similitude,  or  connexion  of  cause  and  effect.  So 
the  verb,  to  spring,  denotes  an  act,  and  gives 
rise  to  a  noun  denoting  an  act.  A  perception 
of  similitude  transfers  the  word  to  the  issuing  of 
water  from  a  fountain,  to  the  motion  of  a  watch- 
spring,  and  to  the  springing  of  plants  in  the 
spring  of  the  year.  Yet  who  does  not  feel,  that 
to  be  able  to  trace  such  a  process  of  thought,  is 
far  from  proving  that,  when  a  man  in  one  case 
says,  I  made  a  spring  over  the  ditch,  in  another, 


THE    LATTER    GREEK.  29 

I  broke  the  spring  of  my  watch,  in  another,  I 
drank  from  a  spring,  and  in  another,  I  prefer 
spring  to  winter,  he  means  in  each  case  the  same 
thing  by  the  word  spring  ?  And  who,  in  using 
these  words,  always  resorts  to  the  original  idea 
of  the  verb?"  {Pres.  Beecher  in  Bib.  Repos. 
1841.) 

"  It  is  true,"  says  Campbell  (Prelim.  Dis.  L, 
Part  2,)  ^^that  as  the  New  Testament  is  written 
in  Greek,  it  must  be  of  consequence  that  we  be 
able  to  enter  critically  into  the  ordinary  import 
of  the  words  of  that  tongue."  "  But  from  what 
has  been  observed,  it  is  evident,  that  though  in 
several  cases  this  knowledge  may  be  eminently 
useful,  it  icill  not  suffice ;  nay,  in  many  cases, 
it  will  be  of  little  or  no  significancy."  "  Clas- 
sical use,  both  in  Greek  and  in  Latin,  is  not  only, 
in  this  study,  sometimes  unavailable,  but  may 
OFTEN  MISLEAD.  The  sacred  use  and  the  classical 
are  often  very  different." 

In  the  Biblical  Repository,  for  April,  1841, 
Professor  Robinson  says,  "  The  language  of  the 
New  Testament  is  the  latter  Greek,  as  spoken  hy 
foreigners  of  the  Hebrew  stock,  and  applied  hy 
them  to  subjects  on  which  it  had  never  been  em.- 


30  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

ployed  by  native  Greeks.  After  the  disuse  of 
the  ancient  Hebrew  in  Palestine,  and  the  irrup- 
tion of  Western  conquerors,  the  Jews  adopted 
the  Greek  language  from  necessity;  partly  as 
a  conquered  people,  and  partly  from  intercourse 
of  life  and  commerce,  in  colonies,  in  cities, 
founded  like  Alexandria,  and  others,  which  were 
peopled  with  throngs  of  Jews."  "  When  to  this 
we  add,  that  they  spoke  in  Greek  on  the  things 
of  the  true  God,  and  the  relations  of  mankind  to 
Jehovah  and  to  a  Saviour — subjects  to  which  no 
native  Greek  had  ever  applied  his  beautiful  Ian- 
guage,  it  will  be  obvious  that  an  appeal  merely 

TO  CLASSIC  GPvEEK  AND  ITS  PHILOLOGY  WILL  NOT 
SUFFICE  FOR  THE  INTERPRETER  OF  THE  NeW  TES- 
TAMENT. The  Jewish-Greek  must  be  studied 
almost  as  an  independent  dialect,  ^cJ' 

And  the  Rev.  Dr.  E.  Hall,  of  Connecticut,  to 
whose  able  work  on  baptism,  I  acknowledge 
myself  especially  indebted  for  the  suggestion  of 
the  main  argument  of  this  treatise — remarks  as 
follows:  "The  sole  intent  of  all  this  discussion 
about  the  classic  use  and  the  New  Testament 
use,  is  to  show  that  the  word  baptize  in  the  New 
Testament  may  have  left  its  primary  classic  sig- 


THE  GREEK  PLOW.  31 

nification,  and  have  received  a  generic,  sacred 
use,  equivalent  to  avashing  or  purifying,  without 
the  least  reference  to  the  mode  in  which  that 
"  washing  of  water  "  is  performed.  Whether 
this  be  the  fact  or  not,  is  to  be  learned  not  from 
the  Greek  classics,  but  from  the  New  Testament 
itself.  As  to  this  matter  of  fact,  Mark  and  Luke 
and  Paul  are  better  Avitnesses  concerning  what 
they  themselves  understood  by  the  w^ord  baptize, 
than  Xenophon,  Aristotle,  or  than  even  that  He- 
brew of  Hebrews,  the  Jewish  Josephus,  when  he 
is  using  the  w'ord  in  the  sense  of  the  Greek 
classics,  w^ith  no  reference  to  its  use  as  applied 
to  a  religious  ordinance."  He,  therefore,  who 
undertakes  to  prove  the  nature  or  mode  of  Chris- 
tian baptism  from  the  previous  meaning  of  the 
name,  now  used  to  designate  it,  argues  inconclu- 
sively. 

The  word  arotron,  (aporpov,)  for  instance,  in 
ancient  Greek,  signifies  a  plow.  But  the  plow 
used  by  the  Greeks,  and  designated  by  this  name, 
was  a  straight  stick  of  timber,  some  six  or  eight 
feet  long,  sharpened  at  one  end,  with  a  clevis  at 
a  suitable  distance  from  the  sharpened  point,  by 
which  it  was  drawn,  while  it  was  steered  by  a 


32  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

man  at  the  other  end  of  the  stick.  The  plow 
used  in  Greece,  at  the  present  day,  I  am  told,  is 
of  this  description.  It  is  known  in  the  history 
of  mechanics,  as  the  old  Roman  'plow. 

Now  suppose  the  Greeks  should  invade  and 
conquer  us,  as  they  did  the  Jews  of  Palestine,  and 
should  make  it  necessary  for  us,  as  it  was  for  them, 
to  learn  the  Greek  language,  and  to  call  our  im- 
plements of  agriculture,  and  other  things,  by 
Greek  names.  And  suppose,  in  our  new  lan- 
guage, we  should  call  our  plow  aroiron.  Does 
not  every  one  perceive,  that  the  word  aroiron, 
thus  applied,  has  a  nevv^  meaning,  conformed  to 
the  thing  which  it  is  now  used  to  designate? 
Does  it  still  mean,  with  us,  a  straight  stick,  be- 
cause that  was  its  primary  meaning  in  classical 
Greek?  We  know  it  does  not.  We  look  at 
the  plow  in  daily  use  among  ourselves,  with  its 
colter,  and  share,  and  handles,  and  other  admira- 
ble contrivances,  and  when  we  call  it  arotron, 
we  mean  just  what  this  thing,  the  modern  plow, 
really  is.  Thus  the  word,  in  our  use  of  it  to 
express  an  existing  thing,  loses  its  primitive 
meaning.  It  no  longer  means,  with  us,  a  straight 
stick,  but  a  veritable  Yankee  plow. 


THE  GREEK  PLOW.  33 

It  needs  no  great  learning  to  see  the  point  of 
this  statement.  It  is  open  to  the  common  sense 
of  plain  men,  for  whom  I  have  designed  it.  I 
wish  the  reader  to  be  done  with  the  embarrass- 
ment he  may  have  felt  from  much  of  the  classical 
learning,  which  has  been  displayed  on  the  primi- 
tive meaning  of  (3a'ff-Ti^(^  (baptizo)  and  ^a^rw 
(bapto,)  which  is  a  still  more  primitive  word, 
and  of  course,  still  further  removed,  if  possible, 
from  the  religious  idea  expressed  by  haptizo,  in 
the  New  Testament.  All  this  learning  is  mis- 
applied. It  serves  only  to  darken  counsel  by 
words  without  knowledge,  because  it  has  really 
no  bearing  whatever  on  the  subject  of  Christian 
baptism*  Arotron  as  used  by  us,  in  the  case 
which  I  have  supposed,  would  mean  the  ploio  in 
common  use  among  ourselves,  and  how  absurd 

*  This,  I  am  aware  is  a  strong  expression.  I  do 
not  mean  to  affirm  that  there  was  no  reason  for  the 
selection  of  baptizo  to  denote  Christian  baptism,  rather 
than  any  other  Greek  word.  There  is  an  analogy  be- 
tween its  primitive  meaning  and  its  religious  mean- 
ing ;  and  that  was  a  good  reason  for  its  selection.  But 
since  it  has  been  appropriated  to  this  specijSc  use,  we 
are  to  learn  its  new  meaning,  not  from  that  analogy, 
but  from  tlie  thing  which  it  now  signifies. 


34  MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 

would  it  appear  to  the  common  sense  of  the 
generations  that  shall  come  after  us,  if  some  one 
should  rise  up  a  hundred  years  hence,  and  un- 
dertake to  prove,  with  a  great  parade  of  learn- 
ing, that  the  plow  called  by  us  arotron,  was 
certainly  a  straight  stick,  and  nothing  else,  be- 
cause that  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  arotron, 
in  all  the  Greek  classics  I  And  this  I  think  the 
reader  will  see  is  a  fair  illustration  of  the  fallacy 
of  the  argument  derived  from  the  ancient  clas- 
sical meaning  of  baptizo,  to  prove  that  immer- 
sion is  certainly  the  only  baptism.  The  argu- 
ment is  wide  of  the  point  at  issue,  and  is  of  no 
practical  importance,  because  it  has  no  bearing 
upon  the  question  in  dispute. 

The  foregoing  illustration  also  suggests  the 
only  w^ay  in  which  we  may  hope  to  come  to  the 
truth  on  this  subject.  It  is  to  consider  histori- 
cally the- thing,  which  our  Saviour  requires,  in 
his  command  to  his  disciples  under  the  name  of 
baptism.  The  scriptural  meaning  of  this  word, 
when  applied  to  the  religious  ordinance  in  ques- 
tion, is  what  we  wish  to  understand.  We  do 
not  ask,  therefore,  what  bapto  and  baptizo  meant, 
in  their  secular  use,  before  they  were  applied  to 


MEANING    OF    BAPTIZO.  35 

express  a  religious  idea  of  any  sort.  Nor  do  we 
ask  what  a  heathen  Greek — before  he  had  ever 
seen  the  thing  here  called  baptism — would  have 
imagined  the  Saviour  to  mean  by  this  word  ? 
Nor,  again,  do  we  ask  what  is  the  meaning  of 
this  word,  when  used  in  a  merely  secular  sense, 
with  no  reference  to  the  religious  rite  of  baptism, 
even  in  the  New  Testament?  Neither  of  these 
inquiries  reaches  the  point  in  debate.  The  true 
question  relates  wholly  to  the  meaning  of  the 
word  as  used  by  the  Saviour  himself,  and  as  un- 
derstood by  his  disciples,  in  reference  to  the  Chris- 
tian baptism  and  analogous  rites;  and  this  can 
be  ascertained  only  from  the  history  of  the  things, 
the  religious  observances,  to  which  it  is  applied  in 
the  sacred  writings.  This  history  was  familiar  to 
Christ  and  his  apostles.  It  was  contained  in 
their  own  scriptures,  and  was  a  part  of  their 
daily  experience.  It  must,  therefore,  have  fur- 
nished the  elements  of  the  meaning  which  they 
attached  to  the  word  baptizo,  when  they  used  it 
to  designate  a  religious  ordinance  which  they 
both  commanded  and  observed. 


SECTION   III. 

SCRIPTURE  ILLUSTRATIONS  OF  THE  MEANING  OF  THE 
WORD  BAPTISM  {f^anfTid^tJig)  INDEPENDENT  OF  THE 
MODE  OF  ITS  ADMINISTRATION,  AND  OF  SPRINKLING 
AS  THE  ONLY  MODE  OF  BAPTISM  IVIADE  KNOWN  IN 
THE   BIBLE. 

There  were  various  ritual  or  prescribed  obser- 
vances under  the  law  of  Moses,  in  which  both 
water  and  blood  were  used  as  emblems  of  puri- 
fication or  cleansing;  which  the  apostle  denomi- 
nates (Heb.  9:  10,)  ^'divers  washiiigs,^'  In  the 
original  it  is  Sia^popoig  (Sa'ifTKfiJ.oTs  (^divers  baptisms.) 

The  reader  should  here  possess  himself  of  de- 
finite impressions,  as  to  the  true  nature  of  these 
Jewish  purifications  or  baptisms  They  were 
not  literal  or  actual  washings  of  the  body,  which 
were  prescribed  in  these  rites,  but  only  symbolical 
cleansings.  They  were  external  ceremonies  or 
observances,  in  which  water  or  blood  was  ap- 
plied to  persons  and  things,  as  a  symbol,  emblem, 
or  sign  of  their  purification,  as  consecrated  to 
God  and  accepted  by  him.     There  was  no  neces- 


SYMBOLICAL  PURIFICATIONS.  37 

sity,  therefore,  Ihat  the  water,  or  purifying  ele- 
ment, should  be  used  in  a  sufficient  quantity  to 
accomplish  an  actual  washing.  A.ny  quantity, 
applied  in  any  mode,  might  serve  as  a  symbol  of 
cleansing,  just  as  the  smallest  quantities  of  bread 
and  wine,  broken  and  poured  out,  in  whatever 
mode,  are  appropriate  symbols  of  the  broken 
body  and  shed  blood  of  Christ,  in  the  sacrament 
of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

This  is  a  principle  well  settled  in  the  scrip- 
tures, as  acceptable  to  God  in  the  worship  which 
he  requires  of  men.  A  purification  thus  pro- 
fessed and  symbolized  is  a  part  of  the  scripture 
language  of  worship,  a  seal  of  covenant  engage- 
ments and  promises.  So  among  the  Jews,  when 
the  body  of  a  murdered  man  had  been  found,  and 
the  murderer  had  eluded  discovery,  the  elders  of 
the  city  nearest  to  the  place  where  the  body  was 
found,  were  required  to  wash  their  hands — not 
their  whole  bodies — over  a  slain  heifer,  as  a 
public  pledge  or  protestation  of  their  entire  inno- 
cence in  this  matter.  (Deut.  21  :  1-9.)  And 
David  says,  (Ps.  26  :  6,)  "  I  will  wash  my  hands 
in  innocency."  Here  the  washing  of  the  hands 
was  intended  as  an  emblem  of  the  innocencv  '^f 


38  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

the  whole  man.  So  Pilate  "took  water  and 
washed  his  hands,  saying  I  am  innocent  of  the 
blood  of  this  just  person."  (Mat.  28 :  24.)  And 
our  Saviour  said  to  Peter,  "  He  that  is  washed 
needeth  not  save  to  wash  his  feet,  and  is  clean 
every  whit."     (John  13:  10.) 

The  true  meaning,  therefore,  of  the  "  divers 
baptisms"  under  the  law,  and  of  Christian  baptism 
— the  main  idea,  the  thing  commanded — is  puri- 
jication  or  consecration.  This  is  the  thing  signi- 
fied by  the  external  symbol;  and  the  mode  of 
applying  the  symbol  is  comparatively  unimport- 
ant. This  is  especially  the  case  in  Christian 
baptism.  Hence  no  particular  mode  is  prescribed 
in  our  Saviom^'s  command  to  his  disciples  to 
baptize ;  and  the  only  thing  upon  which  the 
mind  can  fasten,  in  this  command,  as  of  divine 
obligation,  is  the  thing  signified  by  the  word 
baptize,  which  is  to  purify,  or  to  consecrate,  by 
the  application  of  water  in  some  mode.  And 
not  only  is  no  precise  mode  of  applying  the 
symbol  prescribed  in  the  command,  but  no  mode 
is  spoken  of  afterwards,  as  binding,  or  as  com- 
manded. The  thing  called  baptism,  or  purifica- 
tmi,  is  commanded,  but  nothing  said  of  the  mode; 


SYMBOLICAL  PURIFICATIONS.  39 

and  I  maintain  that  the  mode  is  not  indicated  by 
the  names  baptism  and  purification.  These 
names  are  used  to  designate  the  thing  itself, 
which  is  symbolical  cleansing,  or  consecration. 
And  these  names,  in  this  respect,  are  synonymous. 
They  mean  the  same  thing.  Both  in  the  New 
Testament  and  in  the  writings  of  the  Christian 
fathers,  they  are  used  interchangeably,  the  one 
for  the  other.* 

An  example  of  this  is  found,  Luke  11:  38-41. 
We  are  here  told  that  a  certain  Pharisee  invited 
the  Saviour  to  dine  with  him;  "  and  he  went  in 
and  sat  down  to  meat.  And  when  the  Pharisee 
savp-  it,  he  marveled  that  he  had  not  washed 
(sSa'Trrjo'^y),  ebapfisthe,  baptized,)  before  dinner." 
And  the  Lord  said  unto  him,  "  Now  do  ye  Pha- 
risees make  clean  [xa&api^srs,  katharizete,  pu- 
rify) the  outside  of  the  cup  and  the  platter,"  &,c. 
"  But  rather  give  alms,"  *  *  *  *  '-  and  behold 
all  things  are  clean  (xa^apa,  kathara,  pure) 
unto  you."  Now  the  subject  of  the  Pharisee's 
wonder  was  the  fact  of  the  Saviour's  not  bap- 

*  President  Beecher  in  his  articles  in  the  Am.  Bib. 
Repos.,  1840-1,  has  furnished  ample  proof  of  the  cor- 
rectness of  this  statement. 


40  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

tizing  before  dinner.  But  the  Saviour,  in  shaping 
his  reply  to  meet  the  point  of  the  Pharisee's  ob- 
jection, addresses  him  on  the  practice  oi  'purify- 
ing the  outward  man,  and  of  being  over-exact 
in  mere  legal  or  superstitious  distinctions  between 
clean  and  unclean  things,  in  a  ceremonial  sense, 
and  advances  the  principle  elsewhere  expressed, 
that  "  to  the  pure" — morally — "  all  things  are 
pure."  Does  not  the  obvious  and  natural  force 
of  this  whole  passage  go  to  show,  that  baptizo 
is  here  used  in  the  sense  of  Jcatharizo,  to  purify? 
There  was  an  occurrence  also,  recorded  John 
3:  25,  26,  which  shows  conclusively,  that  the 
simple  idea,  at  this  time  attached  to  baptism,  was 
that  of  purifying  or  cleansing,  "  Then  there 
arose  a  question,  between  some  of  John's  disci- 
ples and  the  Jews,  about  purifying  (xa^apio'fxou, 
katharismou.)  And  they  came  to  John,  and  said 
unto  him,  Rabbi,  he  that  was  wnth  thee  beyond 
Jordan,  to  whom  thou  bearest  witness,  the  same 
baptizeth,  and  all  men  come  to  him."  The  sub- 
ject of  dispute  here  w^as  evidently  the  Jewish 
rite  of  purifying,  which  these  Jews  had  heard 
that  Jesus  was  practising — "  though  Jesus  him- 
self baptized  not,  but  his  disciples,"  (John  4:  2,) 


BAPTIZE  NOT  TRANSLATED.  41 

and,  to  settle  this  question  "  about  'purifying^' 
they  appeal  to  John  on  the  subject  of  haptism.y 
showing  plainly  that  they  considered  baptism,  as 
performed  by  John  and  by  Christ's  disciples,  the 
same  thing  as  the  Jewish  rite  of  purification,  and 
that  they  used  the  words  baptizo  and  katharizo, 
to  purify,  indifferently,  the  one  for  the  other, 
when  they  spoke  of  these  ordinances. 

Yet  purify,  in  our  language,  would  not  be  a 
perfect  translation  of  baptizo,  because  purify, 
with  us,  has  no  exclusively  sacred  meaning;  and 
we  have  no  word  that  has  such  a  meaning,  in  re- 
spect to  this  ordinance,  excepting  baptize.  This 
is  the  w^ord  which  is  more  frequently  used,  than 
purify,  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  to  de- 
note this  ordinance.  Thus  it  had  acquired,  as  we 
have  seen,  a  peculiar  meaning,  appropriate  to  the 
thing  which  it  was  now  used  to  signify.  And 
there  was  no  word  in  any  other  language,  except- 
ing the  Hebrew,  which  did  signify  this  thing. 
Hence  when  the  Bible  came  to  be  translated  into 
Latin,  this  word  baptizo  was  simply  transferred, 
not  translated,  because  it  was  the  only  word  in  ex- 
istence, excepting  purify,  which  had  been  com- 
monly used  to  denote  the  Christian  sacrament  of 


42  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

baptism.  There  were  words  in  Latin,  which 
signified  immerse  and  submerge,  but  these  did 
not  properly  define  the  ordinance.  It  was  not 
immersion,  but  baptism,  in  the  sense  of  symbo- 
lical purification.  So  in  translating  the  Bible 
into  Latin,  (see  the  Vulgate,)  the  learned  men 
of  the  fourth  century  did  not  employ  immergo  or 
submergo,  but  the  Greek  word  baptizo.  And 
this  was  done  at  a  time  when,  if  baptism  w^as 
not  commonly  administered  by  immersion,  yet 
immersion  was  certainly  practised  in  connection 
with  it.  But  immersion,  as  a  mode,  did  not  ex- 
press the  meaning  of  baptism,  because  many 
things  that  were  immersed,  were  not  baptized. 

For  the  same  reason,  when  the  Bible  was 
translated  into  English,  the  word  baptize  was 
simply  transferred.  To  have  used  the  word 
plunge,  or  immerse,  or  sprinkle,  or  pour,  or 
purify,  would  have  been  a  false  translation  of 
baptizo,  because  none  of  these  words  would  de- 
fine the  religious  ordinance  in  question.  They 
mean  any  kind  of  plunging,  &c.,  and  have  no 
appropriate  sacred  sense.  But  baptism,  as  yet, 
had  no  meaning  in  the  English  language.  Il 
was  not  an  English  word.     But  in  the  Greet 


BAPTIZE  NOT  TRANSLATED.  43 

of  the  New  Testament,  and  in  the  Latin  transla- 
tion of  the  Bible,  it  had  been  long  appropriated 
as  the  name  of  the  Christian  sacrament  referred 
to.  The  transfer  of  this  word  bapHsra  into  the 
English  Bible  was  only  calling  the  thing  by  its 
right  name.  It  had  no  other  name  in  any  lan- 
guage, and  this  name  having  been  adopted  in 
our  Bible,  and  used  in  all  religious  writings  to 
denote  that  peculiar  thing  called  baptism,  has 
become  naturalized  as  its  name  in  our  language. 
It  means  the  Christian  sacrament  of  baptism,  and 
nothing  else.  And  we  have  no  other  word  in 
the  language  which  expresses  this  meaning. 

The  word  baptism,  therefore,  in  its  sacred 
use  to  signify  symbolical  purification,  conveys 
no  idea  as  to  the  mode  of  purifying.  Much  less 
does  it  define  a  particular  mode.  Yet  there  was 
a  mode  of  performing  this  rite.  If  the  thing 
itself  was  done,  it  was  of  course  done  in  some 
mode.  And  there  may  have  been  different  modes 
adopted  at  different  times.  But  it  is  not  impro- 
bable that  both  prescription  and  usage  had  led 
to  some  degree  of  uniformity  in  the  mode.  If, 
therefore,  we  can  learn  what  was  the  common 
mode  of  purifying  among  the  Jews,  we  may 


44  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

reasonably  infer  that  the  same  or  a  similar  mode 
was  practised  by  John  and  by  the  disciples  of 
Christ,  in  baptizing. 

Let  us  recur  tlien  to  the  remark  with  which 
this  Section  was  introduced,  viz.,  that  there  were 
various  ritual  or  prescribed  observances,  under 
the  law  of  Moses,  in  which  both  water  and  blood 
were  used  as  emblems  of  purification  or  cleans- 
ing. And  the  "  water-pots"  and  other  prepara- 
tions for  these  observances  were  in  common  use, 
in  our  Saviour's  time.  So,  at  the  marriage  feast 
in  Cana  of  Galilee,  we  read,  (John  2  :  6,)  that 
"  there  were  set  there  six  water-pots  of  stone 
after  the  manner  of  the  purifying  of  the  Jews, 
containing  two  or  three  firkins  apiece."  These 
things  were  all  familiar  to  Christ  and  his  disci- 
ples, long  before  Christian  baptism  was  instituted, 
and  when  they  spoke  of  them  in  the  Greek  lan- 
guage, they  called  them  purifyings,  or  baptisms. 
So,  (Heb.  9:  10,)  the  apostle  speaks  of  the  Jew- 
ish ritual  service  as  standing  "  in  meats,  and 
drinks,  and  divers  washings,^'  (baptisms.)  Then, 
going  on  to  compare  the  Jewish  dispensation 
with  that  of  Christ,  to  show  the  glory  of  the 


SPRINKLING.  45 

latter,  the  apostle  refers  to  one  of  these  divers 
baptisms,  and  shows  us  what  he  means. 

The  case  to  which  he  refers  is  that  described 
(Num.  19:  17,  18,)  as  follows:  "And  for  an 
unclean  person,  they  shall  take  of  the  ashes  of 
the  burnt  heifer  of  purification  for  sin,  and  ruii- 
ning  water  shall  be  put  thereto  in  a  vessel; 
And  a  clean  person  shall  take  hyssop,  and  dip  it 
in  the  water,  and  sprinkle  it  upon  the  tent,  and 
upon  all  the  vessels,  and  upon  the  persons  that 
were  there,  and  upon  him  that  touched  a  bone, 
or  one  slain,  or  one  dead,  or  a  grave."  Now  it 
is  this  sprinkling,  which  the  apostle  refers  to,  as 
one  of  the  divers  baptisms,  which  were  practised 
among  the  Jews,  and  says,  (Heb.  9:  13, 14,)  "  If 
the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of 
a  heifer,  sprinkling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to 
the  purifying  of  the  flesh,  how  much  more  shall 
the  blood  of  Christ,  &c.  purge  your  conscience 
from  dead  works?" 

It  is  clear,  from  these  expressions,  that  sprink- 
ling, in  the  mind  of  the  apostle,  was  a  mode  of 
baptism.  It  was  a  baptism  too,  which  was  em- 
blematic oi  purification,  the  very  thing  that  bap- 
tism signifies  under  tJ^e  gospel,  according  to  the 


46  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

dijQferent  ideas  of  'purification  in  the  two  dispen- 
sations, the  one  of  the  flesh,  the  other  of  the 
spirit.     And  the  sprinkling  was  here  performed 
in  a  summary  way,  with   a  bunch   of  hyssop, 
which  they  dipped  in  the  fluid  and  sprinkled  it 
upon  the  people  in  groups,  as  they  stood.     This 
hyssop  was  a  small  herb,  probably  resembling 
moss.     It  is  spoken  of  (1  Kings  4:  33,)  where 
it  is  called  ''  the  hyssop  that  springeth  out  of  the 
wall."     This  they  used  alone,  or  mixed  it  with 
wool,  as  a- kind  of  sponge,  for  the  purpose  of  re- 
taining water.      And  the  sprinkling  with  this 
was  a  baptism,  in  the  scripture  meaning  of  hap- 
tizo.     It  is  here  called  a  baptism,  by  the  apostle. 
He  proceeds  to   speak   of  a  similar   baptism. 
performed  by  Moses,  when  he  dedicated  the  first 
testament,  and  says,  (Heb.  9:  19,)  "  When  Moses 
had  spoken  every  precept  to  all  the  people,  ac- 
cording to  the  law,  he  took  the  blood  of  calves 
and  of  goats,  with  water,  and  scarlet  wool,  and 
hyssop,  and  sprinkled  both  the  book  and  all  the 
people.      The  reference  here  is  to  Exod.  24  : 
5-8.     How  grand  and  solemn  was  the  occasion, 
when  Moses  thus  dedicated  the  covenant !    There 
were  at  that  time  six  hundred  thousand  men 


SPRINKLING.  47 

capable  of  bearing  arms  in  Israel.  The  people 
must  have  numbered  two  or  three  millions.  Yet 
they  were  all  baptized  with  w^ater  mingled  with 
blood,  and  sprinkled  upon  them  from  a  bunch  of 
hyssop  and  w^ool,  as  an  emblem  of  their  religious 
purification  before  God. 

Now  it  is  in  vain  to  say  that  these  were  Jew- 
ish ordinances  which  were  done  aw^ay  in  Christ, 
and  therefore  prove  nothing.  They  do  prove 
the  very  thing  for  which  I  bring  them  forward. 
They  prove  that  sprinkling,  in  the  mind  of  the 
apostle,  so  far  as  the  meaning  of  the  word  is 
concerned,  was  a  mode  of  baptism. 

Another  of  these  divers  baptisms  is  described. 
Num.  8:7.  In  purifying  the  Levites  and  setting 
them  apart  to  their  office,  Moses  says:  "Thus 
shalt  thou  do  unto  them  to  cleanse  them ;  Sprinkle 
water  of  purifying  upon  them,"  &c.  The  leper 
was  in  like  manner  to  be  cleansed  by  sprinkling. 
(Levit.  14  :  7.) 

Sprinkling,  then,  among  the  Jews,  was  the 
emblem  of  cleansing  or  purification.  But  Christ 
and  his  apostles  w^ere  born  in  the  Jewish  church, 
and  were  familiar  with  this  idea  so  often  exem- 
plified in  the  daily  services  to  which  they  were 


48  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

accustomed.  So,  when  speaking  of  the  spiritual 
cleansing  produced  by  the  hlood  of  Christ,  Paul 
calls  it  "the  blood  of  sprinkling. .^^  (Heb.  12: 
24,)  and  Peter  calls  it  the  "  sprinkling  of  the 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ,"     (1  Pet.  1  :  2.) 

Now  Christian  baptism  was  instituted  as  an 
emblem  of  this  same  internal  spiritual  cleansing, 
of  which  both  Paul  and  Peter  speak  above,  as  a 
sprinkling.  This  was  the  idea  in  their  minds 
when  they  thought  of  the  significancy  of  the 
ordinance  of  baptism.  They  never  speak  of  it 
as  an  immersion  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  or  an 
immersion  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  They  attached 
no  such  idea  to  the  mode  of  purification  external 
or  internal,  whether  by  blood,  by  water,  or  by 
spirit. 

It  is  true  indeed  that  the  word,  tabal,  in  the 
Hebrew  scriptures,  which  is  rendered  by  haptizo 
in  Greek,  occurs  some  fourteen  times  in  the  Old 
Testament,  where  it  does  not  mean  to  sprinkle, 
but  to  dip,  as  to  dip  the  finger  in  blood,  (Lev. 
4:  6,)  to  dip  hyssop  in  water  to  sprinkle  with, 
(Num.  19  :  18,)  to  dip  a  piece  of  bread  in  vine- 
gar, (Ruth  2:  14,)  to  dip  the  feet  in  oil,  (Deut. 
33:  24,)  &c.     But  in  all  these  cases,  the  word 


PURIFICAION  OF  PERSONS.  49 

is  used  in  reference  to  things  and  not  to  'persons, 
and  in  no  case  is  it  used  to  denote  'purification. 
In  all  cases  of  the  use  of  water  or  blood,  in  the 
Old  Testament,  as  an  emblem  of  purification  in 
respect  to  persons,  sprinkling  is  the  \vord  used. 
I  do  not  doubt  that  in  the  bathings  practised  by 
the  Jews,  immersions,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  were 
common;  but  they  were  not  enjoined  in  the  law. 
Dr.  E.  Beecher,  in  his  article  on  the  "  Import  of 
Ba-jrri^w,"  in  the  Bib.  Repos.,  for  1840,  after  a 
thorough  examination,  does  not  hesitate  to  say, 
"  It  is  perfectly  plain,  therefore,  that,  whatever 
was  the  practice  of  the  Jews,  no  immersions  of 
persons  were  enjoined,  and  the  whole  Mosaic 
ritual,  as  to  personal  ablution,  could  be  fulfilled 
to  the  letter  without  a  single  immersion.  The 
only  immersions  enjoined  in  the  Mosaic  law  were 
immersions  of  things,  as  vessels,  sacks,  skins,  &c., 
to  which  no  reference  is  had  in  Heb.  9  :  10." 

These  facts  are  important  to  be  remembered; 
for  the  apostle  (Heb.  9  :  10,)  is  not  speaking  of 
all  the  purifications  or  ablutions  performed  by 
the  Jews,  but  only  of  those  oi  persons,  which  he 
says,  (v.  13,)  "sanctified  to  the  purification  of 
4 


50  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

the  Jlesh,''  and  which,  of  course,  had  respect  to 
the  person  of  the  worshipper. 

Professor  Stuart  also,  in  his  article  on  Bap- 
tism, (Bib.  Repos.,  1833,)  says,  "We  find,  then 
no  example  among  all  the  Levitical  washings, 
or  ablutions,  where  immersion  of  the  person  is 
required."     (Vol.  3,  p.  341.) 

From  this  fact,  so  fully  attested,  it  must  be 
inferred  that  sprinkling,  so  far  as  the  mode  is 
concerned,  was  the  idea  in  the  minds  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles  in  the  institution  of  baptism,  as 
an  emblem  of  the  spiritual  cleansing  of  persons. 
Carrying  this  idea  into  practice,  they  would 
naturally  adopt  sprinkling  as  their  mode  of  bap- 
tism. That  they  actually  did  baptize  in  this 
mode  will  appear  still  more  probable  from  con- 
siderations yet  to  be  introduced. 


SECTION    IV. 

THE  NATURE  AND  DESIGN  OF  JOHN's  BAPTISM,  AND  OF 
THE  BAPTISM  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR  BY  JOHN. 

Having,  in  the  preceding  Section,  referred  to 
the  baptism  of  John,  I  think  it  proper  to  remark 
here,  that,  besides  the  Jewish  rites  of  purifica- 
tion, other  baptisms  somewhat  peculiar  had  been 
introduced,  and  were  well  known  to  Christ  and 
his  disciples,  before  the  institution  of  Christian 
baptism  by  our  Saviour. 

To  say  nothing  here  of  the  Jewish  proselyte 
baptism,*  which  I  shall  have  occasion  to  con- 
sider more  at  large  hereafter,  the  baptism  of  John 
had  already  been  commenced  and  concluded. 
The  nature  of  this  baptism,  therefore,  should  be 
considered,  to  show  the  prevalent  use  of  the 
word,  haptizo,  at  the  time  of  our  Saviour's  last 

*  Wliatever  may  have  been  the  mode  of  the  Jewish 
proselyte  baptism,  it  should  be  remembered  that  this 
baptism  was  a  mere  usage,  which  had  grown  up,  and 
was  not  an  institution  of  the  Mosaic  law.  Nor  is  it 
named  in  the  scriptures. 


52  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

command  to  his  disciples.  I  do  not  now  allude 
to  the  7node  of  John's  baptism,  which  will  be 
discussed  in  its  proper  place.  But  it  is  import- 
ant for  the  reader  to  have  in  his  mind  some  ac- 
curate views  of  the  distinctive  character  of  this 
baptism. 

Let  it  be  understood,  then,  that  John's  bap- 
tism was  not  Christian  baptism.  John  began 
to  preach  and  baptize,  six  months  before  Christ 
entered  upon  his  public  ministry.  His  baptism, 
therefore,  cannot  be  supposed  to  be  Christian 
baptism,  without  involving  the  absurdity  oi 
supposing  that  the  initiating  ordinance  of  the 
Christian  system  existed  six  months  previous  to 
Christianity  itself  And  if  this  were  so,  it  would 
prove  that  Christ  did  not  institute  Christian  bap- 
tism, which  is  also  absurd;  for  the  law  of  Moses 
did  not  end  in  John,  but  in  Christ.  The  legal 
dispensation,  indeed,  was  in  full  force  during  all 
the  time  of  John's  ministry,  and  the  personal 
ministry  of  Christ,  and  came  to  its  close  only  in 
the  death  and  resurrection  of  the  Saviour,  after 
which,  as  we  have  seen.  Christian  baptism  was 
instituted. 

Again,  John  baptized  his  disciples  on  profes- 


JOHN  S    BAPTISM.  53 

sion  of  repentance.  Christian  baptism  is  pro- 
perly administered  to  adults,  only  on  the  profes- 
sion of  regeneration.  (Acts  19:  4;  2  :  38;  Gal. 
3:  27.)  The  faith  which  John  required  was 
faith  in  a  Saviour  yet  to  come;  and  this  was  the 
faith  of  all  the  Jews,  who  believed  the  prophe- 
cies of  their  own  scriptures.  So  Paul  declares, 
(Acts  19:  4)  "John  verily  baptized  with  the 
baptism  of  repentance,  saying  unto  the  people, 
that  they  should  believe  on  him,  loho  should  come 
after  him,  that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus.''  But  John 
did  not  baptize  in  the  name  of  Christ,  nor  in  the 
name  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  If  he  had,  he  would 
have  given  his  disciples  appropriate  instruction, 
and  certainly  would  have  taught  the  people  to 
know  that  he  was  not  himself  the  Christ.  Yet 
it  is  said,  (Luke  3:  15,)  "All  men  mused  in 
their  hearts,  of  John,  whether  he  were  the  Christ 
or  not."  And  after  John  had  finished  his  minis- 
try, having  baptized  a  large  proportion  of  the 
people  of  Judea,  our  Saviour  propounded  to  his 
disciples,  the  following  question,  (IVIat.  16:  13, 
14,)  "  Who  do  men  say  that  I,  the  Son  of  man, 
am?     And  they  said.  Some  say  that  thou  art 


54  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

John  the  Baptist:  some  Elias:  and  others,  Jere- 
mias,  or  one  of  the  Prophets." 

Here  was  a  degree  of  prevailing  ignorance  of 
Christ  quite  inconsistent  with  the  supposition 
that  John  had  baptized  in  his  name.  Indeed 
John  himself  appears  not  to  have  known  the 
Saviour's  person,  until  he  had  been  several 
months  baptizing  "  with  the  baptism  of  repent- 
ance." Hence  previous  to  the  Saviour's  bap- 
tism, he  expressly  declares,  "  I  knew  him  not." 
(John  1:  32-34.)  And  as  to  any  recognition 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  John's  baptism,  some  whom 
he  had  baptized,  themselves  affirmed,  (Acts  19: 
2,  3,)  "  We  have  not  so  much  as  heard  whether 
there  be  any  Holy  Ghost."  So  Paul  baptized 
them  "  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  paying 
no  regard  to  their  having  been  baptized  by  John. 
(Acts  19:  5.)  This  surely  he  would  not  have 
done,  if  the  baptism  of  John  had  been  Christian 
baptism. 

It  appears  then  that  John's  baptism  was 
finished  before  the  institution  of  Christian  bap- 
tism, and  that  it  was  different  in  its  design  and 
in  its  distinctive  character.  It  took  place  not 
under  Christ,  but  under  the  Jewish  dispensation. 


John's  baptism.  55 

That  dispensation  continued  in  full  force  until 
the  death  of  Christ.  Then  the  veil  of  the  tem- 
ple was  rent  in  twain,  the  great  sacrifice  for  sin 
was  offered,  and  the  typical  sacrifices  ceased. 
Then  Christ  blotted  out  the  hand-writing  of 
ordinances,  that  was  against  us,  and  took  it  out 
of  the  way,  "  nailing  it  to  the  cross."  (Col.  2: 
14.)  Yet  the  baptism  of  John  was  not  strictly 
a  Jewish  ordinance,  but  rather  a  Divine  ordi- 
nance independent  of  Judaism.  It  was  not  of 
the  law,  but  was  a  specific  institution  for  a  spe- 
cial purpose;  and  being  peculiar  in  its  design, 
it  was  of  only  temporary  application.  It  was 
an  ordinance  for  the  time  being,  preparatory  to 
the  ministry  of  Christ.  Like  the  preaching  of 
John,  and  his  ministry  in  general,  it  was  to  "  pre- 
pare the  way  of  the  Lord ;"  and  like  the  ordi- 
nances strictly  Jewish,  it  was  done  away  in 
Christ. 

It  may  be  remarked  al«o  here,  that  Christ 
himself,  as  well  as  his  fore-runner,  lived  under 
the  old  dispensation,  and  was  a  strict  observer  of 
the  institutions  of  Moses.  He  was  "  made  under 
the  law,"  and  all  that  was  done  in  the  church, 
previous  to  the  Saviour's  death,  belonged  pro- 


56  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

perly  to  that  dispensation.  So  the  baptism  of 
the  Saviour  by  John  was  not  Christian  baptism; 
that  is,  it  was  not  the  baptism  which  he  himself 
afterwards  instituted  as  a  Christian  sacrament. 
Nor  was  he  baptized  in  his  own  name.  His 
receiving  baptism  at  the  hands  of  John  was  evi- 
dently one  of  his  acts  of  submission  to  the  ordi- 
nances then  existing  in  the  church,  whether 
strictly  Jewish,  or  appropriate  to  the  ministry  of 
his  forerunner.  And  so,  when  "  John  forbade 
him,  saying,  I  have  need  to  be  baptized  of  thee, 
and  comest  thou  to  me?"  he  said,  "  Suffer  it  to 
be  so  now;  for  thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil  all 
righteousness,"  that  is,  to  fulfil  every  ordinance, 
(Mat.  3  :  14,  15.) 

Nor  did  this  baptism  of  Christ,  by  John,  par- 
take of  the  nature  of  John's  baptism,  as  admin- 
istered to  others.  It  was  not  a  baptism  "  unto 
repentance;"  for  Christ  had  no  sin  to  repent  of. 
It  was  not,  as  in  the  case  of  all  others,  preparatory 
to  the  reception  of  the  Saviour;  for  he  was  him- 
self the  Saviour.  But  the  rite  here  administered 
was  peculiar  and  appropriate  to  its  adorable 
subject. 

Christ  was  now  in  his  thirtieth  year — the  age 


57 

at  which;  by  the  appointment  of  God,  the  priests 
under  the  law  were  to  undertake  the  duties  of 
their  office.  He  was  a  "  high-priest,"  and  was 
about  to  enter  upon  his  public  ministry.  This 
baptism,  in  his  case,  was  not — it  could  not  have 
been  a  c-^-nbol  of  cleansing,  but  of  priestly  con- 
secratioi:.  So  Christ  exercised  the  office  of  a 
priest  du  :ng  his  personal  ministry.  It  was  in 
this  chai..cter  that  he  purged  the  temple;  and 
when  the  chief  priests  and  elders  demanded  of 
him,  by  :hat  authority  he  did  these  things,  he 
appealed  to  the  baptism  of  John,  for  a  vindica- 
tion of  his  authority.  (Mat.  21:  12,23-27.) 
If  the  Jev.'s  had  acknowledged  the  baptism  of 
John  to  have  been  from  heaven,  he  would  doubt- 
less have  silenced  them  by  saying,  "  It  was  by 
that  baptism  that  I  w^as  consecrated  to  my 
priestly  oliice;"  for,  among  the  Jews,  what  was 
done  by  an  accredited  prophet  of  the  Lord,  was 
both  authoritative  and  irreversible.* 

*  Hibbard  on  Baptism,  p.  4 


SECTION  V. 

ALL  THE  QUESTIONS  ON  THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM  RE- 
DUCED TO  ONE.  THE  WATER  APPLIED  TO  THE 
PERSON,  AND  NOT  THE  PERSON  TO  THE  WATER. 

All  the  questions  that  have  been  raised,  as  to 
the  mode  of  baptism,  resolve  themselves  into  this 
one:  Is  the  water  to  be  applied  to  the  person, 
or  is  the  person  to  be  applied  to  the  water? 
Shall  the  water  be  poured  or  sprinkled  on  the 
person,  or  must  the  person  be  dipped  or  immersed 
into  the  water?  This  is  the  question;  and  I 
maintain  that  the  applying  of  the  water  to  the 
person  is  the  only  mode  of  baptism,  as  a  reli- 
gious ordinance,  made  known  in  the  scriptures. 
My  position  is  that  the  Bible  invariably  teaches 
that  in  the  administration  of  baptism  to  persons, 
both  Jewish  and  Christian,  the  water  was  ap- 
plied to  the  subject  of  the  ordinance — the  person. 
Some  of  the  proofs  of  this  will  now  be  adduced. 


60  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

1.    The  Primary  Idea  of  Purifying, 

The  thing  signified  by  baptism,  both  Jewish 
and  Christian,  as  we  have  seen  (Sec.  Ill,)  was 
purifying,  or  cleansing.  But  the  primary  idea 
of  purifying,  or  cleansing,  is  the  application  of 
water  to  the  person  or  thing  purified  or  cleansed. 
So,  in  the  examples  already  referred  to,  in  the 
Old  Testament,  of  ceremonial  cleansings — which 
the  apostle  calls  baptisms — the  water  was  ap- 
plied to  the  persons,  and  not  the  persons  to  the 
water.  They  were  in  every  instance  performed 
by  sprinkling. 

2.  Purifications  of  Things,  as  well  as  Persons, 
The  Baptism  of  Cups,  and  Pots,  and  Brazen 
Vessels  and  Tables. 

But  there  were  ceremonial  purifications  of 
things,  as  w^ell  as  of  persons,  among  the  Jews, 
which  Christ  and  his  apostles  were  accus- 
tomed to  speak  of  as  baptisms.  The  evange- 
list Mark  says,  (7:  4,)  of  the  Pharisees  and  all 
the  Jews,  "  When  they  come  from  the  market, 
except  they  wash,  (baptize)  they  eat  not. 
And  many  other  things  there  be,  which  they 


WATER  APPLIED  TO  THINGS.  61 

have  received  to  hold,  as  the  washing  {baptisms) 
of  cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen  vessels,  and  tables." 
The  word  here  translated  taUes  is  xXjvwv  (Jdinon) 
and  properly  signifies  beds  or  couches.  It  is  so 
translated  in  the  30th  verse  of  this  chapter,  and 
in  eight  other  places  w^here  it  occurs  in  the  New 
Testament.  They  had  no  chairs,  and  these 
couches  were  a  kind  of  sofa  or  divan,  on  w^hich 
they  were  accustomed  to  sit,  leaning  on  each 
other,  according  to  the  usual  mode  of  sitting  in 
those  days. 

Now  the  "  cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen  vessels," 
here  spoken  of,  may  possibly  have  been  im- 
mersed all  over  in  water.  But  this  is  by  no 
means  probable.  They  doubtless  washed  them 
in  a  common-sense  w^ay,  by  the  application  of 
water  with  the  hand,  or  a  cloth,  holding  them 
partly  in  the  water,  or  over  it,  or  they  poured 
water  on  them,  to  suit  their  convenience.  And 
to  suppose  that  the  beds  or  couches  were  im- 
mersed,  would  be  preposterous,  especially  if  w^e 
consider  the  superstition  of  the  Jews,  Avhich  led 
them  to  practice  these  purifications  many  times 
in  a  day.  To  have  immersed  their  couches  so 
often  would  have  kept  them  constantly  unfit  for 


62  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

use.  Besides,  these  washings,  or  baptisms,  were 
merely  ceremonial,  and  we  have  already  seen 
that  such  purifications  or  baptisms,  in  many  cases, 
were  performed  by  sprinkling. 

So  of  the  first  part  of  this  verse,  (Mark  7:  4,) 
*^  Except  they  wash  (baptize')  they  eat  not." 
This  baptizing  was  the  simple  washing  of  the 
hands  w^th  a  little  water  drawn  from  the  w^ater- 
pots,  and  poured  on  them.  This  is  abundantly 
proved  by  the  custom  still  prevalent  in  those 
Eastern  countries.  It  was  a  mere  ceremonial 
washing,  and  the  water-pots  were  not  of  suffi- 
cient dimensions  to  render  immersion  possible. 
They  contained  only  "  two  or  three  firkins," 
that  is  about  ten  or  twelve  gallons,  "  apiece;" 
and  they  w-ere  made  small  at  the  top,  like  a 
common  jar.  Yet  the  washing  of  the  hands  with 
a  little  water  drawn  from  these  pots,  and  poured 
on  them,  was  a  baptism,  that  is,  a  purification, 
of  the  whole  person  from  ceremonial  defilement. 
Thus  far  it  is  plain  that  baptisms  w^ere  perform- 
ed by  applying  the  water  to  the  person,  and  not 
the  person  to  the  water. 


BAPTISM  IN  THE  CLOUD.  63 

3.  Figurative  Allusions.  Baptism  "  in  the 
Cloud  and  in  the  Sea.^^  The  Salvation  of 
Eight  Souls  in  the  Ark,  likened  to  Baptism. 

This    same    idea    is   illustrated    by  what  is 
said  of  baptism    in    reference    to    occurrences 
resembling   the  purifications  of  the  Jews,  but 
here   the    rite    of  purifying  was  not    literally 
performed.     Paul  says,  (1  Cor.    10  :  2,)    that 
the  Israelites  "  were   all  baptized  unto  Moses, 
in    the  cloud   and  in    the  sea."      What  does 
this  mean?      The  reference  is  to  the  passage 
of  Israel  out    of  Egypt,  (Exod.  14  :  19,  &c.) 
where  it  is  most  manifest  that  there  was  no  im- 
mersion in   water,   but   water  was   poured   or 
sprinkled  on  them  from  the  cloud.     The  record 
says,  that  the  cloud  "  went  from  before  their 
face    and   stood   behind   them."      It   doubtless 
passed  over  their  heads,  and  in  passing,  it  rained 
upon   them,   as   Asaph   declares,  (Ps.  77:  17,) 
probably   referring   to   this   very  event,  "The 
clouds  poured  out  water."     Perhaps,  however, 
the  baptism  in  the  cloud  did  not   occur   at  the 
same  time  with  the  baptism  in  the  sea.     Profes- 
sor Stuart  says — I  know  not  on  what  authority — 


64  MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 

"  the  cloud  on  this  occasion  was  not  a  cloud  of 
rain."*  Adniitting  that  it  was  not,  still  there 
was  a  cloud  of  rain  that  attended  them  on  their 
journey.  This  fact  is  recognized  in  the  song  of 
Deborah,  (Judges  5:  4,)  "O  Lord,  when  thou 
wentest  out  of  Seir,  when  thou  marchedst  out  of 
the  field  of  Edom,  the  earth  trenibled,  the  hea- 
vens dropped  {distilled),  the  clouds  also  drop- 
pe.i'XcaterJ''  And  the  Psalmist  declares,  (Ps.  68 : 
7,  9,)  "  0  God,  when  thou  wentest  forth  before 
thy  people,  when  thou  didst  march  through  the 
wilderness,"  &c.,  '^^hou,  0  God,  didst  send  a 
plentiful  rain,  w^h.  '  by  thou  didst  confirm  thine 
inheritance  when  it  was  weary."  And  this 
illustrates  the  meaning  of  the  expression,  "  were 
all  baptized  unto  Moses,  in  the  cload."  They 
were  thus  confirmed,  when  they  icere  weary,  in 
their  allegiance  to  Moses,  as  their  divinely  con- 
stituted leade.",  and,  as  it  were  consecrated  anew 
to  the  service  of  God,  under  the  law.  Their 
baptism,  however,  was  by  spi^inkling  and  not  by 
immersion. 

But  Paul  says,  they  were  baptized,  not  in  the 

*Bib.  Repos.  1833,  p.  336. 


BAPTISM  IN  THE  SEA.  66 

cloud  only  but  also  in  the  sea,  that  is  the  Red- 
Sea,  when  they  passed  through  it  by  the  dividing 
of  the  waters.  Here  too  there  was  no  immer- 
sion, but  they  were  baptized  by  sprinkling. 
We  are  told,  (Exod.  14  :  22,)  that  "!he  children 
of  Israel  went  into  the  midst  of  the  sea  on  dry 
ground;  and  the  waters  w'ere  a  w^all  unto  them, 
on  their  right  hand  and  on  their  left."  They 
were  not  immersed,  but  the  "  strong  east  wind," 
which  divided  the  w^aters,  no  doubt  produced  a 
dashing-  of  the  spray,  which  sprinkled  them  In 
no  other  w^ay  could  they  have  been  hajyhzed  by 
the  waters  of  the  sea,  in  the  case  here  referred 
to.  The  Egyptians,  who  followed  after  them, 
"  even  all  Pharaoh's  horses,  his  chariots,  and  his 
horsemen,"  (Exod.  14: 23,)  were  truly  iinmersed; 
they  w^ere  "  buried  in  immersion  unto  death/' 
as  our  Baptist  brethren  are  so  fond  of  saying; 
"they  sank  as  lead  in  the  mighty  waters." 
(Exod.  15:  10.)  If,  then,  the  apostle  designed 
to  represent  baptism  as  immersion,  why  did  he 
refer  to  the  Israelites,  w^ho  went  over  on  dry 
land,  and  were  only  sprinkled  by  the  spray  of 
the  sea?  Why  did  he  not  speak  of  the  Egyp- 
tians, who  were  immersed  and  drowned  in  it? 
5 


66  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

They  were  truly  baptized,  according  to  the  pri- 
mitive meaning  claimed  for  the  old  heathen- 
Greek  word  haptizo. 

Peter  says,  (1  Pet.  3:  20,  21,)  "The  long 
suffering  of  God  waited  in  the  days  of  Noah, 
while  the  ark  was  a  preparing,  wherein  few,  that 
is  eight  souls,  were  saved  by  w^ater.  The  like 
figure  w^hereunto  even  baptism  doth  also  now 
save  us — not  the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the 
flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  to- 
wards God — by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ." 
Baptism  is  here  represented  as  a  means  of  salva- 
tion, by,  or  through,  "  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ."  It  can  be  so,  how^ever,  only  to  such  as 
receive  the  thing  signified  by  baptism,  viz.,  the 
cleansing  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  All 
such,  through  the  resurrection  of  Christ  from  the 
dead,  have  a  good  hope  of  eternal  life.  And 
Peter  here  tells  us  that  baptism  as  a  means  of 
salvation,  w^as  prefigured,  not  surely  by  the  wa- 
ters of  the  flood,  but  by  the  salvation  of  those  in 
the  ark,  who  "  were  saved  by  water."  But  how 
were  they  saved  by  w^ater?  Certainly  not  by 
submersion.  This  was  the  very  evil,  from  which 
the  ark  was  the  instrument  of  their  deliverance. 


BAPTISM  IN  THE  SEA.  67 

All  who  were  out  of  the  ark  perished.  Submer- 
sion was  as  fatal  to  them,  as  it  was  to  the  Egyp- 
tians, who  were  buried  in  the  Red  Sea.  But  the 
ark  and  they  that  were  in  it  were  not  immersed 
in  the  flood.  They  were  borne  aloft  on  the  tjur- 
face  of  the  water,  and  the  ark  was  sprinkled 
with  the  rain  that  fell  from  heaven,  or  with  the 
dashing  of  the  spray.  This  was  the  "  figure, 
whereunto"  Peter  likens  Christian  baptism.  It 
was  a  sprinkling:  with  water,  and  the  very  idea 
of  immersion  is  excluded. 


SECTION  VI. 

THE  MODE  OF  JOHN's  BAPTISM. 

John  baptized  with  water,  not  into  water; 
that  is,  he  applied  the  water  to  the  subject,  and 
not  the  subject  to  the  water.  So  he  declares, 
(John  1:  31,)  "  Therefore  am  I  come  baptizing 
with  water."  And,  (Mat.  3:11,)  "I  indeed  bap- 
tize you  with  water,  but  he  that  cometh  after 
me,  &c.,  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy 
Ghost."  To  evade  the  force  of  this  expression, 
it  has  been  contended  by  some  Baptist  writers, 
that  the  Greek  particle  sv  [en,)  here  rendered 
with,  ought  to  be  translated  into,  which  is  per- 
haps the  more  common  meaning  of  this  particle. 
But  the  latter  clause  of  the  verse  shows  the  im- 
propriety of  such  a  rendering  here;  for  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  clearly  an  application 
of  the  Divine  Spirit  to  the  soul  of  the  believer. 
It  would  be  a  plain  perversion  of  the  meaning 
of  the  passage  to  say,  "  he  shall  immerse  you 
into  the  Holy  Ghost."     So  John  says,  "  I  indeed 


John's  baptism.  69 

baptize  you  with  water,"  as  Christ  "  shall  bap- 
tize you  with  the  Holy  Ghost." 

But  if  we  were  not  so  emphatically  told,  as 
we  are  in  these  passages,  that  John  baptized  with 
w^ater,  the  impossibility  of  his  having  immersed 
the  immense  multitude  that  came  to  him,  proves 
that  he  must  have  baptized  them  in  some  other 
way;  and  the  proofs  are  strong  and  conclusive 
not  only  that  he  did  not  apply  the  persons  to  the 
water,  but  that  he  did  apply  the  water  to  the 
persons  by  some  mode  of  sprinkling. 

Let  the  reader  examine  the  subject  of  John's 
baptism  as  it  is  presented  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  see  if  we  are  not  justified  in  this  statement. 
Matthew  says,  (3  :  5,  6,)  "There  went  out  to 
him  Jerusalem  and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region 
round  about  Jordan,  and  were  baptized  of  him 
in  Jordan,*  confessing  their  sins."  Mark  says, 
(1:5,)  "  There  went  out  to  him  all  the  land  of 

*  The  expression  in  Jordan — ;v  <rw  lop^av/; — is  often 
quoted  by  Baptists  to  prove  that  John's  baptism  was 
by  immersion.  But  if  this  proves  immersion  in  the 
Jordan,  a  similar  expression — ^Mai'k  1 :  4 — proves  im- 
mersion in  the  ivilderness ;  for  it  is  there  said  "  John 
was  baptizing  in  the  desert — sv  tw  cp»)|xw. 


70  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

Judea,  and  they  of  Jerusalem,  and  were  all  bap- 
tized of  him."  Luke  says,  (3 :  21,)  "  And  when 
all  the  'people  were  baptized,  it  came  to  pass, 
that  Jesus  himself,  being  baptized  and  praying, 
the  heaven  was  opened,"  &c. 

Now  the  population  of  the  city  and  region 
here  described,  as  might  be  proved  by  credible 
historical  testimony,  was  probably  not  less  than 
six  millions.  In  the  days  of  king  David,  a 
thousand  years  before  Christ,  there  were  in  Israel 
and  Judah,  one  million  and  three  hundred  thou- 
sand "  valiant  men  that  drew  the  sword."  (2 
Sam.  24:  9.)  And  this  census  was  exclusive  of 
the  tribes  of  Levi  and  Benjamin,  and  of  all  the 
people  under  twenty  years  old.  Reckoning  five 
persons  to  every  warrior  in  Israel  and  Judah, 
which  is  a  moderate  estimate,  the  whole  popu- 
lation at  that  time  was  more  than  six  millions. 
And,  notwithstanding  the  frequent  wars  of  the 
Jews,  by -which  multitudes  were  slain,  there  is, 
in  their  strong  aversion  to  other  nations,  and 
their  love  of  their  own  country,  which  confined 
them  mostly  to  Palestine,  much  to  render  it  pro- 
bable that  the  population  was  not  materially 
diminished  in  the  time  of  our  Saviour.     The 


John's  baptism.  71 

testimony  of  Josephus  confirms  the  probability' 
that  the  population  of  the  holy  land  was  as  large 
as  in  the  days  of  David. 

It  is  highly  probable  also,  that  a  large  pro- 
portion of  this  population  were  baptized  by 
John.  The  representations  of  the  three  evan- 
gelists, which  ^ve  have  already  quoted,  show 
this.  And  then  it  should  be  considered  that 
John  was  the  predicted  messenger  sent  to  pre- 
pare the  way  of  Christ.  (Mat.  11  :  10.)  He 
was  sent,  not  to  any  party  of  the  Jews,  but  to 
the  whole  Jewish  nation.  All  parties  went  out 
to  see  and  hear  him.  There  seems  to  have  been 
no  great  division  concerning  him,  as  there  w^as 
concerning  Christ.  His  career  w^as  brief  and 
popular.  Hence  our  Saviour  testified  of  him 
to  the  Jew^s,  (John  5  :  35,)  "  He  was  a  burning" 
and  a  shining  light;  and  ye  were  w^illing,  for  a 
season,  to  rejoice  in  his  light." 

But,  to  be  within  bounds,  respectable  and 
learned  writers,  as  Hibbard  and  Kurtz,  have  sup- 
posed, that  John  baptized  only  one-half  of  the 
people  of  Palestine,  say  three  millions.  Could 
he  have  done  this  by  immersion? 

Let  it  be  considered  that  John's  ministry  con- 


/72  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

tinued  only  about  nine  months,  when  he  was 
cast  into  prison  by  Herod  the  Tetrarch,  and  soon 
after  beheaded,  at  the  request  of  a  dancing  girl. 
He  had  been  engaged  in  his  ministry  only  about 
six  months,  when  he  baptized  the  Saviour,  and 
continued  about  three  months  after  that  event. 
And  it  is  easy  to  show  that  he  could  not  have 
employed  the  whole  of  that  time  in  baptizing. 

Suppose  then,  that  John  baptized,  say,  tltree 
millions  of  people  in  nine  months.  Deduct/br^y 
three  sabbaths,  in  which,  according  to  the  Jew- 
ish observance  of  the  Sabbath,  it  was  unlawful 
for  him  to  baptize,  and  there  are  left,  m  all,  two 
hundred  and  thirty-one  days,  in  which  he  was 
perhaps  engaged  in  this  service.  Now  if  we 
suppose  him  to  have  stood  in  the  water  and  bap- 
tized by  immersion,  six  hours  every  day,  he 
must  have  immersed  two  thousand,  one  hundred 
and  sixty-four  every  hour,  thirty-six  every  mi- 
nute, and  more  than  one  every  two  seconds  I 

But  the  supposition  that  John  baptized  so 
large  a  proportion  of  the  people  as  one-half  is 
perha})fi  extravagant.  The  expressions  of  the 
evangelists  referred  to,  do  not  prove  that  he 
baptized  one-half,  any  more  than  that  he  bap- 


73 

tized  the  whole  population.  We  are  not  author- 
ized, therefore,  to  fix  upon  any  particular 
proportion.  These  expressions,  however,  and 
the  whole  history  of  John's  ministry  are  suffi- 
cient to  show  that  the  multitude  whom  he  bap- 
tized was  very  great.  If  we  suppose  it  to  have 
been  only  one  twelfth  part  of  the  population; 
still  it  was  five  hundred  thousand,  which  would 
require  him  to  baptize  three  hundred  and  sixty- 
one  every  hour,  and  six  every  minute. 

For  John,  therefore,  to  have  performed  his 
baptisms  by  immersion,  was  plainly  impossible. 
And  it  is  in  vain  to  say  that  he  accomplished 
his  ministry,  in  this  thing,  by  miraculous  power; 
for  we  are  told,  that  when  Christ  was  afterwards 
at  the  very  place  "  where  John  at  first  baptized," 
"  many  resorted  to  him,  and  said,  John  did  no 
miracle;  but  all  things  that  John  spake  of  this 
man  were  true."     (John  10:  41.) 

It  is  clear  then,  that  he  could  not  have  im- 
mersed all  the  people  that  came  to  him.  Yet  it 
is  expressly  said,  that  he  baptized  them  all.  It 
may  be  asked  whether  it  was  not  equally  impos- 
sible for  John  to  baptize  them,  according  to  our 
mode,  that  is,  by  sprinkling  them,  one  by  one? 


74  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

Our  reply  is,  that  it  is  not  at  all  necessary  to 
suppose  that  he  baptized  them  singly.  The 
Jewish  law  did  not  require  this;  and  John  made 
no  innovation  upon  the  Jewish  rites.  He  simply 
employed  the  customary  ceremony  of  purifica- 
tion, for  the  purposes  of  his  own  ministry. 
Hence  the  Jews  found  no  fault  whatever  with 
his  mode  of  baptism;  and  the  only  imaginable 
reason  is,  that  he  conformed  to  their  own  usa2;e. 
He  doubtless  took  a  bunch  of  hyssop,  and  made 
it  sufficiently  large  for  his  purpose,  and  dipped 
it  in  water,  and  sprinkled  the  people,  as  they 
came  to  him,  in  large  numbers  at  a  time.  This, 
we  have  seen,  was  the  Jewish  mode  of  purifica- 
tion, which  Paul  calls  baptism. 

It  is  manifest,  also,  that  the  vast  multitude 
that  collected  around  John,  w^ent  out  to  hear 
him  preach.  They  had  no  thought  of  being 
baptized,  until  they  w^ere  convicted,  and  applied 
for  baptism  on  the  spot.  Hence  w^e  are  told, 
(John  1:  25,)  that  the  Pharisees  asked  him, 
"  Why  baptizest  thou  then,  if  thou  be  not  that 
Christ,  nor  Elias,  neither  that  prophet?"  They 
went  out,  of  course,  without  any  change  of 
raiment.     No  one  surely  will  suppose  that  they 


BAPTIZING  IN  ENON.  75 

were  immersed,  with  their  clothing  on,  in  these 
circTMiJstances,  and  there  is  no  intimation  that 
they  were  denuded  for  this  purpose.  If,  then,  we 
had  not  been  so  pointedly  informed,  as  we  are, 
that  John  baptized  this  immense  multitude  not 
into  water,  but  with  water,  it  would  still  be 
mconceivable  that  they  were  immersed. 

But  it  is  said  (John  3:  23,)  that  "John  was 
baptizing  in  Enon,  near  to  Salim,  because  there 
was  much  water  there."  "  Why  was  this?"  say 
our  Baptist  brethren.  "  Why  did  John  choose  a 
place  where  there  was  much  water,  if  he  per- 
formed his  baptisms  by  siprinklingV  This  ques- 
tion would  be  of  some  importance,  if  it  had 
been  said  that  John  was  at  Enon  for  the  con- 
venience of  baptizing.  But  no  such  thing  is 
intimated  in  scripture. 

The  circumstances  were  these:  John  had  been 
baptizing  "  in  Bethabara  beyond  Jordan,"  (John 
1:  28.)  All  his  earlier  baptisms  had  been  per- 
formed there.  Why  did  he  leave  that  broad 
river,  and  go  to  Enon?  The  Evangelist,  ac- 
cording to  our  translation,  says,  it  was  "  because 
there  was  m.uch  water  there."  But  there  was 
more  water  in  the  Jordan.     If,  then,  he  con- 


76  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

suited  only  the  convenience  of  baptizing  by 
immersion,  there  was  no  gain  by  his  removal 
Surely  he  was  as  well  accommodated  in  this 
respect,  on  the  banks  of  the  Jordan,  as  he  could 
have  been  at  Enon. 

But  there  was  another  reason  for  his  removal, 
amply  sufficient  to  account  for  his  change  of 
place.  The  Jordan  is  a  turbid  stream.  The 
water  of  it  is  unfit  for  drink  or  culinary  purpo- 
ses, until  it  has  stood  several  hours  in  vessels 
and  settled.  But  the  waters  of  Enon  were  pure 
rivulets  or  streams,  flowing  from  a  single  foun- 
tain or  spring.  The  place  has  been  identified 
by  modern  travelers,  and  it  is  plainly  seen  to 
have  furnished  far  better  accommodations  than 
the  region  of  the  Jordan,  for  the  encampment 
and  comfort  of  the  thousands  and  tens  of  thou- 
sands that  attended  the  ministry  of  John. 
And  the  geography  of  the  place  has  thrown 
light  upon  the  original  expression,  here  trans- 
lated much  water.  It  is  i^riKka  o^arot,  [polla  hu- 
data,)  which  literally  signifies,  not  much  water, 
Sut  many  vxiters  or  streams.  And  the  reason 
IS  now  plain  why  John  resorted  thither.  He 
was  perpetually  attended  by  the  greatest  multi- 


BAPTIZING  IN  ENON.  77 

tude  that  ever  assembled  around  a  human  being 
for  instruction.  Had  they  no  use  for  these  ma7iy 
waters  excepting  for  the  ordinance  of  baptism  ? 
Were  not  these  pure  and  healthful  waters  a  great 
and  almost  indispensable  convenience  for  drink- 
ing, and  for  culinary  and  other  purposes?  And 
did  not  their  camels,  and  horses,  and  asses  need 
water?  Just  such  locations  are  selected  by  those 
who  have  experience  in  camp  meetings  in  our 
own  country.  Pure  and  abundant  springs,  or 
streams  of  running  water,  are  regarded  as  indis- 
pensable for  the  comfort  of  the  people  and  their 
beasts  of  burthen,  without  the  slightest  refer- 
ence to  baptism  in  any  mode.  This  passage, 
therefore,  proves  nothing  as  to  the  mode  of  John's 
baptism.  It  leaves  us  free  to  presume,  that  he 
baptized  in  Enon,  as  he  did  elsewhere,  not  into 
water,  but  with  water.  Doubtless  he  applied 
the  water  to  the  persons,  and  not  the  persons  to 
the  water. 


SECTION  VII. 

PROPHECIES    INTIMATING    THE     MODE    OF     CHRISTIAN 
BAPTISM — THE  BAPTISM  OF  THE  SPIRIT. 

The  prophet  Isaiah  speaks  of  the  coming  of 
Christ  and  of  the  joy  to  be  occasioned  by  the 
gospel,  (Isaiah  52:  7-12;)  also,  of  the  humil- 
iation and  exaltation  of  Christ,  and  the  success 
of  his  cause,  (13-15.)  "Many  nations,"  he 
predicted,  were  to  be  introduced  into  the  Chris- 
tian church.  Now  if  we  turn  to  the  second 
chapter  of  Acts,  we  find,  that  a  few  days  after 
the  Saviour's  ascension,  at  the  outpouring  of  the 
Spirit,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  "  many  nations," 
by  their  representatives,  were  present  to  hear 
the  apostles  preach.  Not  less  than  nineteen  or 
twenty  different  nations  were  represented;  Par- 
thians,  and  Medes,  and  Elamites,  &c.  And 
three  thousand  of  these  representatives  of  "  many 
nations,"  were,  "  on  the  same  day,"  introduced 
into  the  Christian  church  by  the  initiatory  rite 
of  baptism.     They  were  baptized;  i^nr^  this,  I 


PROPHECIES  RESPECTING  BAPTISM.  79 

suppose,  was  according  to  the  prophecy.  But 
how  was  the  baptism  administered  7  By  turn- 
ing back  to  the  prophecy  referred  to,  we  find 
how  it  was  to  be  administered;  (Isaiah  52:  15,) 
"  So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations."  This,  it 
appears,  w^as  to  take  place  at  the  very  beginning 
of  the  promulgation  of  the  gospel.  Was  the 
prophecy  then  fulfilled?  If  it  was,  then  these 
nations  received  baptism  by  sprinkling,  first  the 
sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  in  spiritual 
influences,  and  secondly  the  sprinkling  of  water 
in  external  baptism.  But  if  the  prophecy  w^as 
not  then  fulfilled,  it  remains  to  be  fulfilled;  and 
it  is  equally  certain  that,  when  the  many  nations 
referred  to  shall  all  be  converted,  they  are  to  be 
received  into  the  Christian  church  by  sprink- 
ling. 

The  word  here  rendered  sprinkle  has  been  very 
variously  interpreted,  and  it  is  not  certain  that 
it  should  be  regarded  as  indicating  the  mode  of 
water  baptism.  Yet  to  sprinkle  is  its  usual  and 
proper  meaning,  and  it  is  so  translated  in  Lev. 
4:27;  Isaiah  63:  3;  2  Kings  9:  33;  and  in 
numerous  other  passages  in  the  Old  Testament. 
If,  however,  it  is  rightly  rendered  sprinkle  here, 


80  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

it  no  doubt  had  a  primary  reference  to  the  in- 
fluences of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  were  to  follow 
the  sufferings  of  the  Messiah,  of  which  Chris- 
tian baptism  is  the  emblem.  So  the  Syriac 
version  renders  it,  "  Thus  shall  he  'purify — 
cleanse  or  make  expiation  for — many  nations." 
The  allusion  is  probably  to  the  Levitical  rite  of 
sprinkling  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice,  or  to  the 
custom  of  sprinkling  with  water,  as  emblemati- 
cal of  cleansing  or  purity.  If  used  in  the  for- 
mer sense,  it  means  that  the  Redeemer  would 
make  expiation  for  sin,  and  that  his  blood  of 
purifying  w^ould  be  sprinkled  on  the  nations. 
If  used  in  the  latter  sense,  as  is  most  probable, 
then  it  means  that  he  would  purify  them,  as  un- 
clean persons  under  the  law  were  purified,  by 
the  sprinkling  of  water.  In  either  case,  its 
signification  is  substantially  the  same;  that  is, 
that  Christ  would  purify  or  cleanse  many  nations 
from  their  sins,  and  make  them  holy;  and  this 
is  the  very  thing  which  was  to  be  symbolized 
by  'water  baptism.  It  is  reasonable  to  suppose, 
therefore,  that  there  is  an  allusion  in  this  pas- 
sage to  the  rite  of  baptism  itself,  as  well  as  to 


PROrHECIES  RESPECTING   BAPTISM.  81 

the  spiritual  blessings  of  the  gospel,  which  it 
represents.* 

Again,  there  are  several  prophecies  which 
speak  of  the  conversion  of  the  Jews  to  Chris- 
tianity; and  Paul  asserts  (Rom.  11:  17,)  that 
they  shall  be  graffed  into  their  own  Olive  tree, 
(the  true  church,)  from  which  they  were  broken 
off  for  their  unbelief.  Now  when  this  shall 
occur,  they  will  of  course  receive  Christian 
baptism..  But  in  what  mode  is  their  baptism  to 
be  administered?  The  prophet  Ezekiel  speaks 
largely  on  the  restoration  and  conversion  of  the 
Jews;  let  him  answer:  (Ez.  36:  24-26,)  "For 
I  will  take  you  from  among  the  heathen,  and 
gather  you  out  of  all  countries,"  &c.,  "  Then 
will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye 
shall  he  clean.''  If  there  is  any  thing  taught  in 
this  passage  concerning  the  mode  of  Christian 
baptism,  sprinkling  is  the  mode. 

It  must  be  admitted,  also,  that  the  scriptures 
represent  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  and  the  bap- 
tism with  water  as  analogous.     The  one  is  the 

*See  Barnes  on  Isaiah;  also  Cook  &  Towne  on 
Baptism,  p.  128. 

6 


82  MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

sign  or  emblem  of  the  other.  "  I  indeed  baptize 
you  with  water  unto  repentance,  but  he  that 

Cometh  after  me  is  mightier  than  I, he  shall 

baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire." 
(Matt.  3:  11.)  Now  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit 
is  always,  in  scripture,  represented  as  the  appli- 
cation of  the  Spirit  to  the  believer,  and  not  the 
believer  to  the  Spirit.  In  Acts  1 :  5,  the  Saviour 
is  represented  as  having  said  to  his  disciples, 
"  Ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not 
many  days  hence."  And  Peter  says,  (Acts  2* 
16,  17,)  that  the  scenes  of  the  day  of  Pentecost 
were  in  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  of  Joel,  "  And 
it  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  saith  God, 
I  will  'pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh."  In  Isa- 
iah (44 :  3,)  it  is  said,  '^  I  will  pour  my  Spirit  upon 
thy  seed  and  my  blessing  upon  thine  offspring." 
And  (Acts  11:  15,)  Peter  says,  in  describing  the 
effects  of  his  preaching  at  the  house  of  Cornelius, 
"The  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them,  as  on  us  at  the 
beginning."  Similar  expressions  are  used  in 
Isaiah  32: 15;  52: 15;  Ezek.  39:  29,  and  many 
other  passages,  where  the  Spirit  is  represented 
as  poured  out  upon  the  people,  falling  on  them. 


PROPHECIES  RESPECTING  BAPTISM.  83 

and  descending  or  distilling  as  the  dew  and  the 
rain,  and  as  showers  that  water  the  earth;  to  re- 
semble which,  in  water  baptism,  pouring  or 
sprinkling,  and  not  immersion,  is  manifestly  the 
proper  mode. 


SECTION  VIII. 

HISTORICAL  ILLUSTRATIONS  OF  THE  MODE  OF  BAP- 
TISM, AS  IT  WAS  ADMINISTERED  BY  THE  APOSTLES. 
THE  GREEK  PARTICLES  TRANSLATED  INTO  AND 
OUT  OF. 

We  come  now  to  matters  of  fact  and  history, 
as  to  the  mode  in  which  the  apostles  actually 
did  administer  Christian  baptism,  in  obedience 
to  the  Saviour's  last  command. 

1.  The  Baptism  of  Three  Thousand  on  the  Bay 
of  Pentecost. 
The  first  account  of  the  administration  of 
baptism,  after  the  ascension  of  the  Saviour,  is 
that  recorded,  (Acts  2:  41,)  where  it  is  said, 
"  They  that  gladly  received  his  word,  w^ere  hap~ 
tized;  and  the  same  day  there  were  added  unto 
them  about  three  thousand  souls."  We  have 
already  noticed  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  (52: 15,) 
iu  fulfilment  of  which  we  suppose  the  three 
thousand  baptized  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  must 
have  been  received  into  the  Christian  church  by 
sprinkling.    But  setting  aside  this  prophecy  al- 


THE    THREE    THOUSAND.  85 

together,  ^nd  considering  the  events  of  the  day 
of  Pentecost  historically,  we  are  led  to  the  same 
-conclusion. 

The  apostles  had  no  place  for  the  immersion 
of  such  a  multitude  as  were  then  baptized.  The 
Jordan  was  sixteen  or  eighteen  miles  distant; 
and  at  that  season  of  the  year,  (June,)  the  brook 
Kidron  w^as  nearly  or  quite  dry.*  And  if  it  was 
not  dry,  a  common  sewer  poured  all  the  filth  of 
the  northern  portion  of  the  city  into  it,  render- 
ing it  wholly  unfit  to  be  used  as  a  place  of  im- 
mersion. Where,  then,  could  the  apostles  have 
baptized  the  three  thousand  converts  by  immer- 
sion? These  baptisms  appear  to  have  been 
performed  on  the  spot,  as  well  as  on  "  the  same 
day"  of  their  conversion.  Where  was  the  wa- 
ter for  their  immersion?  There  was  no  river 
nor  l:rook  to  which  they  could  resort  in  so  short 
a  time,  and  there  were  only  two  public  pools  or 
bathing  places  in  Jerusalem,  Bethesda  and  Si- 
loam.     The  latter  was  at  the  foot  of  Mount 

*  This  brook  flowed  along  the  east  side  of  the  city, 
was  at  best  but  a  turbid  and  unimportant  stream,  and 
Was  always  dry  in  summer.  Jahn  informs  us,  its 
channel  is  dry  except  in  winter." — Jahn,  §  19,  p.  20. 


86  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

Moriah,  three-quarters  of  a  mile  distant  from 
where  the  apostles  were  assembled ;  and  we  have 
no  account  of  their  marching  off  to  it,  with  the 
thousands  that  heard  them. 

Bethesda  was  near  at  hand  on  the  north-east 
of  the  Temple,  but  it  was  used  daily  for  the 
cleansing  of  sacrifices,  and  the  blood  and  offals 
of  the  sacrifices  and  temple  were  washed  into  it, 
which,  some  have  imagined,  may  have  imparted 
to  the  water  its  healing  virtue.  At  least  it  must 
have  been  unfit  for  a  place  of  immersion.  It 
was  also  in  the  hands  of  the  priests,  the  avowed 
and  mortal  enemies  of  Christ  and  his  disciples. 
They  ridiculed  the  transactions  of  the  day,  and 
said,  "  these  men  are  full  of  new  wine."  They 
surely  would  not  have  willingly  given  up  the 
pool  of  Bethesda  to  the  apostles,  to  be  used  as  a 
place  of  Christian  baptism.  It  is  probable,  also, 
that  both  Siloam  and  Bethesda  were  of  insuffi- 
cient dimensions  to  allow  the  eleven  apostles  to 
use  them  at  the  same  time  for  the  purpose  of 
immersion. 

The  implacable  opposition  of  the  priests,  and 
of  the  Jews  in  general,  must  also  have  prevented 
their  making  use  of  the  washing  lavers  of  the 


THE  THREE  THOUSAND.  87 

temple  for  this  purpose.  Nor  can  it  be  su]- posed 
that  they  were  admitted  to  the  bathing  places  in 
private  houses  for  immersion  in  such  vast  num- 
bers. For,  besides  the  inconvenience  and  im- 
probability of  this,  on  many  accounts,  these 
bathing  places  were  only  to  be  found  in  the 
houses  of  the  rich  and  honorable,  very  few  of 
whom,  at  that  time,  were  disposed  to  befriend 
the  cause  of  Christ.  Where,  then,  w^e  ask  again, 
could  the  apostles  have  immersed  the  three  thou- 
sand on  the  day  of  Pentecost? 

But  the  difficulties  of  supposing  that  the  con- 
verts on  that  day  were  all  immersed,  are  still 
greater,  if  w^e  consider  that,  after  the  close  of 
Peter's  sermon,  there  were  but  about  five  hours 
of  the  day  remaining.  Yet  the  account  states 
that  they  were  added  to  the  church  ''  the  same 
day."  But  to  have  immersed  them  all  in  five 
hours,  each  of  the  apostles  must  have  immersed 
more  than  fifty  persons  every  hour,  and  more 
than  five  persons  every  six  minutes!  This,  I 
need  not  say,  would  have  been  impossible.  But 
if  the  apostles  performed  the  rite  of  baptism  by 
sprinkling,  according  to  the  prevalent  mode  of 
purifying  among  the  Jews,  the  three  thousand 


OO  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

were  baptized  in  five  hours  with  comparative 
ease. 

It  is  said  indeed,  that  the  seventy  disciples 
(Luke  10:  1,)  might  have  aided  on  this  occasion, 
and  thus  rendered  possible  the  baptism  of  three 
thousand  by  immersion,  in  the  time  specified. 
But  it  is  no  where  said  in  scripture  that  the  seventy 
were  commissioned  to  baptize.  It  is  certain 
that  they  were  not  with  the  apostles  at  the  time 
they  received  the  Saviour's  last  command.  Only 
the  eleven  were  then  present.  (Mat.  28:  16.) 
And  the  account  of  the  day  of  Pentecost,  (Acts 
2:)  gives  us  to  understand  very  explicitly,  that 
the  seventy,  if  they  were  present  at  all,  were 
there  only  as  spectators,  taking  no  prominent 
part  in  the  meeting.  It  says  that  "  Peter,  stand- 
ing up  with  the  eleven,  lifted  up  his  voice." 
Why  are  not  the  seventy  mentioned,  if  they  also 
took  part  in  the  services?  The  truth  is,  there  is 
no  evidence  or  intimation,  that  they  were  there; 
much  less  that  they  took  part  in  the  baptism  of 
the  three  thousand.  Nor  is  there  any  degree  of 
probability,  that  any  others  were  authorized  to 
take  part  in  the  administration  of  these  baptisms. 
Only  ten  days  had  intervened  since  the  apostles 


THE  THREES  THOUSAND.  89 

had  received  their  own  commission  from  the 
Saviour;  and  we  have  no  account  of  their  having 
ordained  any  person  to  the  work  of  the  ministry 
during  that  time.  On  the  contrary,  we  are 
assured  that  the  Saviour  had  commanded  them 
to  suspend  the  exercise  of  all  their  apostolic  func- 
tions, until  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which 
took  place  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  (Luke  24: 
49j  Acts  1 :  7,  8.)  The  difficulties,  therefore, 
in  the  way  of  immersion,  on  this  occasion,  re- 
main insurmountable,  and  all  the  probabilities 
are  in  favor  of  the  conclusion,  that  the  three 
thousand  were  baptized  by  sprinkling. 

The  next  account  of  the  administration  of 
this  ordinance,  in  the  time  of  the  apostles,  is  the 
baptism  of  Simon  and  many  others,  both  men 
and  women,  by  Philip  the  Evangelist,  in  Sama- 
ria. But  there  are  no  circumstances  here  which 
indicate  the  mode.  It  is  simply  said,  "they 
were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus." 
(Acts  8:  12,  13,  16.) 

2.    The  Baptism  of  the  Eunuch  and  of  Christ. 

The  next  occurrence  of  baptism  was  that  of 

the  Eunuch.     (Acts  8 :  38,  39.)    "  And  he  com- 


90-  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

manded  the  chariot  to  stand  still,  and  they  went 
down  both  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the 
Eunuch,  and  he  baptized  him.  And  when  they 
were  come  up  out  of  the  water,  the  Spirit  of  the. 
Lord  caught  away  Philip,  and  the  Eunuch  saw 
him  no  more."  There  is  one  other  passage, 
where  a  similar  expression  occurs;  (Mat.  3:  16.) 
"And  Jesus  when  he  was  baptized  went  up 
straightway" — that  is  immediately — "  out  of  the 
water." 

It  would  be  out  of  place  here  to  go  into  a 
criticism  of  the  Greek  particles  here  rendered 
into  and  out  of.  They  might  with  equal  pro- 
priety be  rendered  to  ?Lndfrom.  They  therefore 
teach  us  nothing  as  to  the  mode  of  baptism. 
They  do  not  govern  the  meaning  of  the  word 
haptizo,  which  is  used  in  connexion  with  them, 
in  these  passages,  but  are  themselves  governed 
by  the  meanmg  which  we  attach  to  baptizo,  in- 
dependent of  them.  If,  for  instance,  I  believe, 
from  other  evidence,  that  Christ  and  the  Eunuch 
were  baptized  by  immersion,  I  should  say  that 
they  went  iiito  the  water  and  came  up  out  of  it. 
If  I  believe  they  were  baptized  by  sprinkling,  I 
should  say  to  Qudfrom  instead  of  into  and  out  of, 


THE  EUNUCH.  91 

unless  I  supposed  that  they  stood  in  the  water, 
which  in  those  days  of  sandals,  is  perhaps  quite 
probable.  These  particles,  therefore,  are  of  no 
use  in  settling  the  question,  because  their  proper 
translation  into  English  depends  on  the  sense  of 
the  words  they  are  used  in  connection  with. 

To  show  how  the  translation  of  these  parti- 
cles must  vary  according  to  the  sense  of  the  sub- 
ject, take  the  following  examples,  where  the 
•word  sjj  (ew),  here  rendered  into,  is  used.  (Acts 
2^:  14,)  "  And  when  we  were  all  fallen  (si?)  to 
the  earth,"  not  into,  &c.  (John  11:  38,)  "  Jesus 
therefore  cometh  (si?)  to  the  tomb"  of  Lazarus, 
not  into  the  tomb.  And  (John  20:  4,  5,)  "  The 
other  disciple  did  outrun  Peter,  and  came  first 
(sij)  to  the  sepulchre.  And  he  stooping  down 
and  looking  in,  saw  the  linen  clothes  lying;  yet 
went  he  not  (s»?)  m."  Now  if  z\g  necessarily 
means  into,  we  ought  to  read  the  passage  thus; 
"the other  disciple  came  first  into  the  sepulchre," 
etc.,  "  yet  went  he  not  into'^  it,  which  would  be 
absurd  and  contradictory.  So  in  a  multitude  of 
other  instances,  the  translations  of  these  little 
-words  vary  with  the  sense  of  the  connexion  in 
which  they  are  found.     Carson,  one  of  the  most 


92  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

learned  and  yet  one  of  the  most  strenuous  of  the 
Baptists,  says  in  respect  to  Mat.  3:  16,  "  I  admit 
chat  the  proper  translation  of  a-Tro  (apo)  is  from, 
not  out  of,  and  that  it  would  have  its  meaning 
fully  verified,  if  they  had  only  gone  down  to  the 
edg-e  of  the  water,  (p.  200.)  After  all  that  has 
been  said,  therefore,  as  to  the  force  of  these 
words,  into  and  out  of,  they  prove  nothing  in 
respect  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  and  we  are  left 
just  where  we  were,  to  learn  historically  what 
was  the  fact  as  to  the  mode  of  these  baptisms. 

As  to  the  baptism  of  Christ  in,  or  at  the  Jor- 
dan, it  was  performed  by  John,  and  we  have  said 
enough  of  John's  baptism  to  show  the  strongest 
probability  that  it  was  administered  by  sprink- 
ling. There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  in  its 
mode,  it  was  in  entire  accordance  with  the 
Jewish  mode  of  purifying.  It  may  be  added 
that  the  Jews,  when  they  baptized  themselves 
in  a  running  stream,  as  they  often  did,  were 
accustomed  to  kneel  down  in  it,  and  with 
their  hands  throw  the  water  hack  over  their 
heads,  and  thus  sprinkle  themselves.  They 
do  this  still,  as  we  are  told  by  travellers.  Here 
then  is  going  down  into  the  water,  and  coming 


THE  EUNTJCH.  93 

up  out  of  the  water,  without  immersion.  And 
to  this  day,  Jewish  pilgrims  are  often  seen  to  go 
down  to  the  Jordan,  where  Christ  was  baptized, 
and  while  they  kneel  down  in  or  by  the  river, 
the  administrator  takes  up  a  little  water,  and 
baptizes  them  by  applying  it  to  their  persons.* 
Thus  they  are  baptized  with  water,  not  into 
water.  Christ  was  probably  baptized  in  this 
way,  according  to  the  Jewish  usage,  and  went 
up  straightway  o^^^  o/,  or  y?om  the  water.  If 
he  kneeled  or  stood  in  the  river,  he  went  into  the 
water  and  came  out  of  it  If  he  kneeled  by  the 
side  of  the  river,  he  went  only  to  the  water  and 
came /ro?/i  it.  But  the  baptism  of  Christ,  though 
performed  by  John,  probably  in  the  ordinary 
mode  of  his  baptism,  did  not,  as  we  have  said, 
(Sec.  IV.)  partake  of  the  nature  and  design  of 
John's  baptism,  as  administered  to  others.  It 
was  a  consecration  to  his  priesthood;  and  the 
law  (Ex.  29:  4,)  required  the  following  purifi- 
cation to  be  performed  in  such  cases.  "  And 
Aaron  and  his  sons  thou  shalt  bring  to  the  door 
of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  and  shalt 
wash  them  with  water."     In  Numbers  8:  7,  we 

*  "Kabbah  Taken":  by  R.  W.  Landis,  p.  39. 

7       ■ 


94  MODE  OF  baptism:. 

are  told  how  this  washing  was  to  be  performed 
"Thus  shalt  thou  do  unto  them  to  cleanse  themj 
sprinkle  water  of  purifying  upon  them."  Here 
then  is  another  evidence,  in  addition  to  the  gene- 
ral mode  of  John's  baptism,  that  Jesus  was 
baptized  by  sprinkling. 

In  the  case  of  the  Eunuch,  the  circumstances 
are  equally  and  perhaps  still  more  conclusive^ 
in  favor  of  sprinkling  as  the  mode  of  his  bap- 
tism. Philip  was  in  Samaria,  and  the  angel  of 
the  Lord  directed  him  to  "  go  towards  the  south, 
unto  the  way  that  goetb  down  from  Jerusalem 
unto  Gaza,  which  is  desert."  It  was  on  the 
road  in  the  desert,  that  he  met  the  Eunuch,  who 
was  a  Jew  of  Ethiopia,  and  had  been  up  to  Je- 
rusalem to  worship.  He  was  now  returning^ 
and  having  the  Jewish  scriptures  with  him,  he 
•was  reading,  as  he  sat  in  his  chariot,  in  the  pro- 
phecy of  Isaiah.*  And  the  place  where  he  read 
"was  this:  "  He  was  led  as  a  sheep  to  the  slaugh- 
ter, and  like  a  lamb  dumb  before  his  shearer,  so 
opened  he  not  his  mouth."  Now  turn  to  Isaiah 
53:  7,  and  you  find  the  very  passage  which  the 

*  Acts  8 :  28.  Esaias  is  the  Greek  spelling  of  the- 
Hebrew  name  Isaiah, 


THE  EUNUCH.  95 

Eunuch  was  readinor.  It  is  a  part  of  the  pro- 
phet's description  of  the  Saviour.  But  the 
Eunuch  understood  it  not.  And  so  he  said  to 
Philip,  "  I  pray  thee,  of  whom  speaketh  the  pro- 
phet this?  of  himself  or  of  some  other  man?"  And 
Philip  "  began  at  the  same  scripture,  and  preach- 
ed unto  him  Jesus.""  He  explained  the  prophecy. 
^''  And  as  they  went  on  their  way,  they  came  to 
a  certain  water;  and  the  Eunuch  said,  see  here 
is  water;  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized?" 
Now  what  was  it  which  led  the  Eunuch  to 
think  of  being  baptized  just  at  this  time?  It 
was  the  preaching  of  Philip,  opening  to  him  the 
scriptures  which  he  had  been  reading.  And  it 
is  remarkable  that  just  in  that  connexion,  and 
only  seven  verses  before,  (Isaiah  52:  15,)  is  the 
prophecy,  on  which  I  have  already  remarked,  as 
having  been  signally  fulfilled  on  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost; "  So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations." 
This,  no  doubt,  Philip  had  explained  to  him. 
So  far,  therefore,  as  the  mode  is  concerned,  it 
was  sprinkling,  and  not  immersion,  which  was 
in  the  mind  of  the  Eunuch,  when  he  asked  for 
baptism.  And,  Jew,  as  he  was,  and  accustomed 
to  this  mode  of  purification,  what  else  could  h© 


96  MODE  OF  BAPTIS^I. 

have  expected,  or  hoped,  but  to  be  baptized  in 
this  way?  And  the  place  and  the  circumstances 
indicate  that  he  was  thus  baptized. 

The  account  says  that  they  came  to  some  -wa- 
ter. The  Greek  word  here  translated  certain,  is 
<n  (^ti,)  which  does  not  indicate,  as  the  English 
reader  might  imagine,  a  well-known  fountain  of 
water.  It  means  simply  some  or  any  water,  and 
has  sometimes  the  sense  of  a  diminutive.  So 
here  it  might  be  rendered,  with  strict  propriety, 
"they  came  to  a  little  w^ater;"  and  the  Eunuch 
exclaimed,  with  evident  emotion,  w^hen  he  saw 
it,  Behold  water  !  This  is  the  literal  translation 
of  the  original.  Behold  water  !  He  does  not  say 
how  much  water.  Nothing  is  said  about  a  river. 
It  was  a  desert,  as  we  have  seen,  and  the  Eu- 
nuch was  doubtless  surprised  and  pleased  to  come 
upon  any  water  in  such  a  place.  Indeed  it  was 
in  this  vicinity,  in  the  valley  of  Gerar,  in  which 
the  city  of  Gaza  stood,  that  Abraham  and  Isaac 
were  obliged  to  dig  wells  to  get  water  for  their 
flocks;  and  "the  herdmen  of  Gerar  did  strive 
with  Isaac's  herdmen,  saying,  The  water  is 
ours."  (Gen.  ^Q>  :  20.)  It  was  not  far  from 
this  place  that  Philip  baptized  the  Eunuch;  and 


THE  EUNUCH.  93 

Tip  out  of  the  water,  without  immersion.  And 
to  this  day,  Jewish  pilgrims  are  often  seen  to  go 
down  to  the  Jordan,  where  Christ  was  baptized, 
and  while  they  kneel  down  in  or  by  the  river, 
the  administrator  takes  up  a  little  water,  and 
baptizes  them  by  applying  it  to  their  persons.* 
Thus  they,  are  baptized  with  water,  not  into 
water.  Christ  was  probably  baptized  in  this 
way,  according  to  the  Jewish  usage,  and  went 
up  straightway  out  of,  or  fiom  the  water.  If 
he  kneeled  or  stood  in  the  river,  he  went  into  the 
water  and  came  out  of  it.  If  he  kneeled  by  the 
side  of  the  I'iver,  he  went  only  to  the -water  and 
came/?-om  it.  But  the  baptism  of  Christ,  though 
performed  by  John,  probably  in  the  ordinary 
mode  of  his  baptism,  did  not,  as  we  have  said, 
(Sec.  IV.)  partake  of  the  nature  and  design  of 
John's  baptism,  as  administered  to  others.  It 
was  a  consecration  to  his  priesthood;  and  the 
law  (Ex.  29:  4,)  required  the  following  purifi- 
cation to  be  performed  in  such  cases.  "And 
Aaron  and  his  sons  thou  shalt  bring  to  the  door 
of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  and  shalt 
wash  them  with  water."     In  Numbers  8:  7,  we 

*«Rahbah  Taken":  by  R.  W.  Landis,  p.  39. 


94  MODE   OF  BAPTISM. 

are  told  how  this  washing  was  to  be  performed, 
"Thus  shalt  thou  do  unto  them  to  cleanse  them; 
sprinkle  water  of  purifying  upon  them."  Here 
then  is  another  evidence,  in  addition  to  the  gene- 
ral mode  of  John's  baptism,  that  Jesus  was 
baptized  by  sprinkling. 

In  the  case  of  the  Eunuch,  the  circumstances 
are  equally  and  perhaps  still  more,  conclusive, 
in  favor  of  sprinkling  as  the  mode  of  his  bap- 
tism. Philip  was  in  Samaria,  and  the  angel  of 
the  Lord  directed  him  to  "  go  towards  the  south, 
unto  the  way  that  goeth  down  from  Jerusalem 
unto  Gaza,  which  is  desert."  It  was  on  the 
road  in  the  desert,  that  he  met  the  Eunuch,  who 
was  a  Jew  of  Ethiopia,  and  had  been  up  to  Je- 
rusalem to  worship.  He  was  now  returning, 
and  having  the  Jewish  scriptures  with  him,  he 
"was  reading,  as  he  sat  in  his  chariot,  in  the  pro- 
phecy of  Isaiah.*  And  the  place  where  he  read 
was  this:  "  He  was  led  as  a  sheep  to  the  slaugh- 
ter, and  like  a  lamb  dumb  before  his  shearer,  so 
opened  he  not  his  mouth."  Now  turn  to  Isaiah 
63:  7,  and  you  find  the  very  passage  which  the 

*  Acts  8 :  28.  Esaias  is  the  Greek  spelling  of  the 
Hebrew  name  Isaiah. 


THE  JAILEK   AND  ALL  HIS.  103 

agined,  that  the  jailer  went  out  in  the  night,  with 
the  prisoners,  to  be  baptized  of  them.  It  would 
have  been  a  breach  of  his  fidelity,  an  unjustifiable 
hazarding  of  the  escape  of  the  prisoners,  which 
might  have  forfeited  his  life  to  the  laws.  And 
you  see  how  sensitive  he  was  on  this  point. 

Nor  was  this  necessary.  The  jailer,  it  appears, 
by  some  means,  had  water  at  hand  for  the  wash- 
ing of  their  stripes.  A  little  of  the  same  water 
would  serve  them  for  the  purpose  of  his  baptism. 
And  more  than  all  this,  Paul  himself  virtually 
affirms  that  they  did  not  go  out  during  the  night. 
As  soon  as  the  morning  came,  the  magistrates 
sent  to  the  jailer  to  "  let  those  men  go."  But 
Paul  said,  "  They  have  beaten  us  openly  uncon- 
demned,  being  Romans,  and  have  cast  us  into 
prison;  and  now  do  they  thrust  us  out  privily? 
Nay,  verily;  but  let  them  come  themselves  and 
fetch  us  out."  Surely,  this  refusal,  so  indicative 
of  conscious  integrity  and  uprightness,  would 
have  been  made  with  a  poor  grace  indeed,  and 
"without  the  least  propriety,  if  the  apostles  had 
already  been  out  during  the  night  '' privily,"  in 
search  of  a  river  or  pond,  in  which  to  immerse 
the  keeper  of  the  prison  and  his  family.     We 


104  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

must  therefore  take  this  account  just  as  it  stands 
in  the  Bible,  and  believe  that  the  jailer  "took 
them  the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and  washed 
their  stripes,"  there  in  the  jail,  where  they  were, 
"  and  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his  straightway/' 

But  it  is  said  that  he  "brought  them  out;" 
that  is,  as  I  understand  it,  he  brought  them  out 
from  "  the  inner  prison,"  into  which  he  had 
thrust  them  for  special  safety.  So,  when  he  is 
said  to  have  "  brought  them  into  his  house,"  it 
was  only  into  another  apartment  of  the  same 
building,  where  he  could  more  conveniently  "  set 
meat  before  them."  This,  however,  was  after 
he  had  "  washed  their  stripes,  and  was  baptized, 
he  and  all  his.''  All  this  w^as  done  in  the  pri- 
son proper,  before  he  "  brought  them  into  his 
house."  They  then  returned  to  the  prison  and 
remained  there,  under  charge  of  the  keeper,  un- 
til the  next  day,  when,  after  Paul's  refusal  to  go 
out,  the  magistrates  "  came  and  besought  them, 
and  brought  them  out." 

The  jailer  "  and  all  his,"  therefore,  were  bap- 
tized in  the  prison.  And  there  is  not  the  slight- 
est proof  that  they  were  plunged  into  water 
there,  but  strong  presumptive  evidence  that  this 


LYDIA  AND  HER  HOUSEHOLD.       101 

5.  The  Baptism  of  Lydia  and  her  Household. 
The  case  of  Lydia  and  her  household,  (Acts 
16:  13-15,)  is  also  in  point.  The  apostles  were 
met  by  the  side  of  a  river,  near  the  city  of  Phi- 
lippi,  where  they  w^ere  accustomed  to  resort  for 
prayer,  when  Lydia  attended  to  the  things  which 
were  spoken  of  Paul,  and  was  baptized.  She 
was  away  from  her  house,  and  probably  had  no 
change  of  raiment  with  her,  and  yet  she  "  was 
baptized  and  her  household."  There  was  a  river 
there,  it  is  true,,  in  which  they  might  have  been 
immersed,  if  that  had  been  the  mode  of  baptism 
practiced  by  the  apostles,  but  there  w^as  no  other 
preparation  for  such  a  baptism.  Surely  the  fact 
that  they  were  "  by  a  river  side,"  does  not  prove 
that  they  baptized  by  immersion,  especially  when 
we  are  told  that  they  went  there,  not  for  the  con- 
venience of  baptizing,  but  because  it  was  a  place 
"  where  prayer  was  wont  to  be  made."  This 
and  the  other  circumstances  indicate  that  though 
Lydia  and  her  household  may  have  been  baptized 
with  the  water  of  the  river,  the  ordinance  was 
probably  performed  in  the  usual  way,  by  sprink- 


102  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

6.  The  Case  of  the  Jailer  and  his  Family, 
The  baptism  of  the  jailer  and  his  family,  (Acts 
16:  33,  34,)  is  still  more  conclusive  in  illustra- 
tion of  the  mode  of  baptism  practiced  by  the 
apostles.  All  the  circumstances  detailed  in  this 
account,  plainly  show  that  immersion  was  wholly 
out  of  the  question.  Paul  and  Silas  were  pri- 
soners, whom  the  jailer  had  been  solemnly  charged 
to  "keep  safely;"  and  for  this  purpose,  and  in 
faithfulness  to  his  charge,  he  had  "  thrust  them 
into  the  inner  prison,  and  made  their  feet  fast  in 
the  stocks."  Suddenly,  "  at  midnight,"  there 
was  an  earthquake,  which  shook  the  foundations 
of  the  prison,  threw  open  the  doors  and  loosed 
the  bands  of  the  prisoners.  The  jailer  awoke  in 
the  greatest  consternation  and  alarm.  He  was 
overwhelmed  with  the  thought  that  the  occur- 
rence would  be  his  ruin.  So  strong  were  his 
feelings  of  obligation  to  kee])  safely  those  who 
had  been  committed  to  his  charge,  that  w^hen  he 
saw  the  prison  doors  all  open,  and  supposed  the 
prisoners  w^ere  fled,  "  he  drew  out  his  sword  and 
would  have  killed  himself."  It  is  not  possible, 
therefore,  to  suppose,  as  some  Baptists  have  im- 


THE  JAILER   AND  ALL  HIS.  103 

agined,  that  the  jailer  went  out  in  the  night,  with 
the  prisoners,  to  be  baptized  of  them.  It  would 
have  been  a  breach  of  his  fidelity,  an  unjustifiable 
hazarding  of  the  escape  of  the  prisoners,  which 
might  have  forfeited  his  life  to  the  laws.  And 
you  see  how  sensitive  he  was  on  this  point. 

Nor  was  this  necessary.  The  jailer,  it  appears, 
by  some  means,  had  water  at  hand  for  the  wash- 
ing of  their  stripes.  A  little  of  the  same  water 
would  serve  them  for  the  purpose  of  his  baptism. 
And  more  than  all  this,  Paul  himself  virtually 
affirms  that  they  did  not  go  out  during  the  night. 
As  soon  as  the  morning  came,  the  magistrates 
sent  to  the  jailer  to  "  let  those  men  go."  But 
Paul  said,  "  They  have  beaten  us  openly  uncon- 
demned,  being  Romans,  and  have  cast  us  into 
prison;  and  now  do  they  thrust  us  out  privily? 
Nay,  verily;  but  let  them  come  themselves  and 
fetch  us  out."  Surely,  this  refusal,  so  indicative 
of  conscious  integrity  and  uprightness,  would 
have  been  made  with  a  poor  grace  indeed,  and 
without  the  least  propriety,  if  the  apostles  had 
already  been  out  during  the  night  "  privily"  in 
search  of  a  river  or  pond,  in  which  to  immerse 
the  keeper  of  the  prison  and  his  family.     We 


104  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

must  therefore  take  this  account  just  as  it  stands 
in  the  Bible,  and  believe  that  the  jailer  "took 
them  the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and  washed 
their  stripes,"  there  in  the  jail,  where  they  were, 
"  and  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his  straightway.'^ 

But  it  is  said  that  he  "brought  them  out;" 
that  is,  as  I  understand  it,  he  brought  them  out 
from  "  the  inner  prison,"  into  which  he  had 
thrust  them  for  special  safety.  So,  when  he  is 
said  to  have  "  brought  them  into  his  house,"  it 
was  only  into  another  apartment  of  the  same 
building,  where  he  could  more  conveniently  "  set 
meat  before  them."  This,  however,  was  after 
he  had  "  washed  their  stripes,  and  was  baptized, 
he  and  all  his."  All  this  was  done  in  the  pri- 
son proper,  before  he  "  brought  them  into  his 
house."  They  then  returned  to  the  prison  and 
remained  there,  under  charge  of  the  keeper,  un- 
til the  next  day,  when,  after  Paul's  refusal  to  go 
out,  the  magistrates  "  came  and  besought  them, 
and  brought  them  out." 

The  jailer  "  and  all  his,"  therefore,  were  bap- 
tized in  the  prison.  And  there  is  not  the  slight- 
est proof  that  they  were  plunged  into  water 
there,  but  strong  presumptive  evidence  that  this 


TWO  OTHER  INSTANCES.  105 

would  have  been  impracticable.  There  is  no 
intimation  of  the  presence  of  a  bath,  suited  to 
the  performance  of  immersion;  and  a  jail,  in 
those  days  of  cruelty,  was  far  less  likely  to  be 
furnished  with  such  accommodations,  than  the 
dwellings  of  luxury  and  wealth.  Indeed,  there 
is  no  probability  that  these  persons  could  have 
been  immersed  in  the  prison,  at  that  dead  hour 
of  the  night;  but  every  circumstance  to  indicate 
that  water  w^as  brought  in  and  applied  to  them 
by  sprinkling. 

7.  Two  other  Instances, 

There  are  only  two  other  instances  of  oaptism 
performed  by  the  apostles,  as  mentioned  in  the 
history  of  their  acts.  The  first  is  that  of  the 
baptism  of  a  number  of  the  Corinthians  by  Paul, 
(Acts  18 :  7,  8.)  The  second  is  that  of  Paul's 
baptizing  certain  disciples  at  Ephesus,  who  had 
been  before  baptized  unto  John's  baptism,  (Acts 
19:  1-5.)  But  there  are  no  circumstances,  in 
these  cases,  which  indicate  the  mode  of  admin- 
istration.*    We  are  left,  therefore,  to  infer  that 

*  Where  were  all  these  disciples,  when  they  were 
thus  met,  and  instructed,  and    baptized    hy  Paul? 

8 


106  MODE  OF  BAPTISM.   ' 

these  baptisms  were  performed  in  the  way  se^ 
strongly  indicated  in  all  the  other  cases,  as  the 
only  mode  in  which  baptism  was  administered 

"by  the  apostles. 

Were  they  certainly  near  to  some  pond  or  creek  ?  "  If 
so,  how  singular  it  is,  that  converts,  in  these  and  other 
cases,  could  not  be  found,  unless,  by  a  remarkable 
coincidence,  a  large  body  of  water  was  near!  If  all 
the  ponds  and  creeks  which  exist  in  the  imagination, 
of  immersionists  who  interpret  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  had  really  watered  Judea,  then,  it  may  be 
proved  by  calculation,  that  there  was  water  enough  to 
have  turned  the  whole  land  into  a  sea." — -Kurtz,  p* 
238. 


SECTION  X, 

EECAPITULATION.  FIGURATIVE  EXPRESSIONS  CON- 
CERNING SPIRITUAL  BAPTISM.  CONCLUSION  OF 
THE  ARGUMENT. 

We  have  now  considered  the  Divine  warrant 
for  baptism,  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptize,  and 
of  the  Greek  particles,  translated  into  and  out  of, 
in  connection  with  it.  We  have  illustrated  the 
meaning  of  this  word  by  the  Jewish  ordinances 
and  usages,  which  the  apostles  call  baptisms  ; 
have  showed  that  the  very  idea  of  cleansing-  or 
purifying  by  water,  by  blood  or  by  Spirit,  is  the 
application  of  the  purifying  agent  or  element  to 
the  person,  and  not  the  person  to  the  element; 
have  considered  John's  baptism  with  water,  and 
those  prophecies  which  are  supposed  to  intimate, 
however  obscurely,  the  mode  of  Christian  bap- 
tism; and  we  have  taken  up  and  considered,  in 
their  order,  all  the  instances  of  baptism  described 
in  the  New  Testament,  as  performed  by  the 
apostles.  And  I  trust,  it  is  now  plainly  seen  by 
the  candid  reader,  that  there  is  nothing  to  be 


108  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

found  either  in  the  meaning  of  the  words  used 
to  designate  baptism,  or  in  the  circumstances 
attending  its  administration,  to  favor  the  idea  of 
immersion,  as  the  mode  of  baptism,  practiced  by 
the  apostles.  On  the  other  hand,  both  the  words 
and  the  circumstances,  respecting  this  subject, 
do  greatly  favor  the  mode  of  sprinkling ;  so 
much  so  indeed,  as  to  constitute  demonstrative 
proof  that  this  is  the  only  mode  of  baptism,  as  a 
religious  ordinance,  made  known  to  us  in  the 
Scriptures.     It  is  the  only  mode  prescribed. 

There  are  other  passages,  in  the  epistles, 
where  w^ater  baptism  is  spoken  of,  but  nothing 
said  to  indicate  the  mode.  There  is  a  passage, 
however,  (1  Cor.  15:  29,)  which  may  have  a 
bearing  on  this  subject.  "  Else  what  shall  they 
do,  who  are  baptized  /br,"  or  over,  (u-^rsp)  "  the 
dead,  if  the  dead  rise  not  at  all?"  The  signifi- 
cation of  this  passage  is  somewhat  obscure. 
"  Tertullian,  Theophilact  and  Epiphanius  inform 
us  that  it  was  the  custom  of  the  Marcionites  and 
Corinthians,  if  a  catechumen  died  before  his  bap- 
tism, to  baptize  some  other  in  his  stead,  as  the 
apostle  here  seems  to  intimate.  And  as  the  early 
Christians  regarded  with  much  veneration  the 


BURIED  IN  BAPTISM.  109 

graves  of  martyrs,  and  occasionally  held  assem- 
blies on  the  spot,  it  is  supposed,  that  in  these 
vicarious  baptisms,  the  rite  was  performed  over 
their  graves.  This  would  be  the  obvious  mean- 
ing of  the  apostle,  if  the  word,  u-Trsp,  in  this  pas- 
sage signifies  over,  as  it  certainly  often  does  in 
Greek  writers.  But  could  the  baptisms  02;er  the 
graves  of  martyrs  be  performed  by  immersion? 
Were  their  OTaves  duo;  at  the  bottoms  of  rivers'?" 
'  -Schmucker^s  Pop.  TheoL,  p.  222. 

There  are  also  expressions  concerning  spiritual 
baptism,  which,  though  they  have  really  no  bear^ 
ing  on  the  subject,  have  been  strangely  and 
strenuously  pressed  into  this  controversy  con- 
cerning the  mode. , 

Paul  says,  (Rom.  6 :  3,  4,)  "  Know  ye  not  that 
so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ 
were  baptized  into  his  death.  Therefore  we  are 
buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death,  that  like 
as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead,  by  the 
glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk 
in  newness  of  life."  And  in  Colossians,  (2:  12,) 
similar  expressions  occur,  "  buried  with  him  in 
baptisim,"  etc. 

Most  Baptist  writers  insist  on  it  that  these 


110  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

passages  have  reference  to  the  motJe  of  watei 
baptism,*  and  are  intended  to  represent  it  as  re 
semhling  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ 
But  there  are  several  considerations  v^'hich  show 
that  there  is  no  allusion,  in  these  passages,  to 
the  mode  of  water  baptism.  The  resurrection 
spoken  of  is  plainly  spiritual.  It  is  to  "  new 
ness  of  life."  Consequently  being  "  buried" 
with  Christ  must  Ipe  spiritual.  It  is  simply  be^ 
ing  "  dead  to  sin,"  that,  as  the  apostle  himself 
explains  it,  w^e  might  not  "  live  any  longer 
therein;"  and  there  is  no  more  allusion  to  the 
mode  of  external  baptism  in  these  expressions, 
than  there  is  in  the  figures  of  planting  and,  cru- 
cifixion, which  the  apostle  uses  in  the  same  con-? 
nexion,  to  illustrate  his  meaning.  And  really 
there  is  no  resemblance  between  the  mode  of 
baptism  by  immersion  and  the  interment  of  the 
dead. 

Dead  bodies  are  not  plunged  into  the  earth. 

*  There  are  some  exceptions  to  this  statement.  Dr. 
Judson,  the  Baptist  missionaiy,  and  Robinson,  the 
Baptist  historian,  both  admit  that  these  passages  are 
misapplied  when  used  as  evidence  of  the  mode  of 
baptism. 


BURIED  IN  BAPTISM.  IH 

Nor  is  the  mode  of  burying  the  dead  alike  among 
all  nations.  The  Romans  in  Paul's  time,  used  to 
burn  the  body.  Some  nations  hang  it  up  till 
the  flesh  decays,  and  others  deposite  it  in  a  vault. 
So  Christ  was  not  huried,  but  laid  in  a  tomb, 
hewn  out  of  a  rock,  probably  above  ground.  It 
is  impossible,  therefore,  that  the  apostle  could 
have  had  reference  to  the  mode  of  baptism.  He 
was  speaking  only  of  spiritual  baptism,  by  which 
■we  become  partakers  of  Christ's  death,  or  the 
benefits  of  it.  So  he  says  in  another  place,  with-^ 
out  any  reference  to  external  baptism,  "  Ye  are 
dead,  and  your  life  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God." 
Besides  other  objections  to  explaining  Col.  2: 
12,  as  teaching  immersion,  there  is  one  on  the 
very  face  of  the  text,  which  is  insuperable.  The 
person  who  is  plunged  in  water  rises  by  the 
muscular  strength  of  the  man  w^ho  plunges  him, 
or  at  least  by  physical  power.  But  Paul  here 
says,  "  Ye  are  risen  with  him,  (Christ)  through 
the  faith  of  the  operation  of  GoL^^  And  can  it 
be  that  this  means  simply  a  resurrection  from 
the  water  of  baptism,  which  our  Baptist  brethren 
w^ithout  the  least  propriety,  or  scripture  warranty 
(Renominate  a  watery  gravel" 


112  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

The  water  of  baptism  is  not  a  grave,  nor  the 
emblem  of  a  grave.  In  the  Jewish  ceremo- 
nies, which  the  apostle  calls  baptisms,  it  was 
always  an  emblem,  or  symbol  of  purification, 
never  of  death  or  interment.  So  Christian  bap- 
tism is  a  symbol  of  moral  purity,  of  being  cleansed 
from  sin,  and  renovated  by  the  influences  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  It  signifies  that  we  are  both  dead 
and  risen,  at  the  same  time;  dead  to  sin,  but 
alive  unto  holiness.  Such  is  the  signification  of 
the  figures  here  used  by  the  apostle.  They  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  place  of  dead  men's  bones, 
with  physical  decomposition  or  natural  corrup- 
tion, but  signify  the  very  opposite  of  all  these — 
moral  purity  and  spiritual  life.  "  For  he  that  is 
dead,  [by 'baptism  into  death,']  is  freed  from 
sin."     (Rom.  6:7.) 

What  then  shall  we  say  to  these  things  ?  For 
in  conducting  this  argument,  we  have  been  con- 
cerned, not  with  the  Greek  classics,  nor  with 
human  imaginings  and  the  authority  of  names, 
but  with  things  and  facts,  as  they  are  presented 
in  the  book  of  God.  We  have  examined  all  the 
important  passages  in  the  New  Testament,  which 
have  a  bearing  upon  the  point  at  issue,  and  in 


CONCLUSON.  113 

none  of  them  have  we  discoYered  any  thing  to 
favor  immersion,  as  the  scriptural  mode  of  Chris- 
tian baptism;  not  even  a  word,  or  incidental  re- 
mark, much  less  ^fad  that  so  much  as  seems  to 
require  immersion.  On  the  contrary  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Bible  preponderate  overwhelmingly 
on  the  side  of  baptism  by  sprinkling,  and  force 
upon  us  the  belief  that  this  was  the  mode  in 
which  baptism  was  administered  by  the  apos- 
tles, in  obedience  to  the  Saviour's  command. 

8 


SECTION  XI. 

ORIGIN  OF  THE  MODE  OF  EAPTISM  BY  BDIERSIOX. 
THE  BIBLE  DOES  NOT  MAKE  THE  MODE  ESSENTIAL. 
YET  IT  IS  IMPORTANT.  A  CONCESSION.  THE 
GRAND  ERROR  OF  THE  BAPTISTS. 

How  then,  it  may  be  asked,  did  the  practice 
of  baptism  by  immersion  come  into  use  among 
the  early  Chi^istian  churches?  For  there  is 
evidence  sufficient  to  show  that,  as  early  as  the 
second  century,  immersion  was  generally  prac- 
ticed, though  it  was  not  then  claimed  by  any  as 
the  exclusive  mode.  Sprinkling  never  ceased  to 
be  held  as  valid  baptism,  and  immersion,  though 
practiced  in  the  early  ages,  was  never  made  an 
indispensable  condition  of  communion  by  any 
sect,  until  the  rise  of  the  Anabaptists  in  the  six- 
teenth century.  Cyprian,  who  was  constituted 
Bishop  of  Carthage,  in  248,  speaking  of  some 
who  were  baptized  by  sprinkling,  quotes  Ezek. 
36:25,  in  justification  of  the  practice,  "  I  will 
sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be 
clean,"  and  then  adds,  "  Hence  it  appears  that 


ORIGIN  OF  IMMERSION.  115 

sprinkling  is  of  equal  validity  with  the  salutary 
bath."  Origen  and  Tertullian  both  lived  within 
one  hundred  years  of  the  apostolic  age.  They 
too  testify  to  the  practice  and  validity  of  bap- 
tism by  affusion  or  sprinkling,  and  recommend  it 
ia  cases,  where,  on  account  of  sickness  or  other 
causes,  immersion  w^as  inconvenient  or  danger- 
ous. The  same  may  be  said  of  Clemens  Alex- 
andrinus  and  Ireneus,  the  first  of  whom  lived 
within  fifty  years  of  the  apostles,  and  the  latter 
was  born  about  the  time  of  the  decease  of  the 
venerable  and  beloved  John.*  But  if  the  validity 
of  baptism  by  sprinkling  was  still  acknowledged, 
how  came  the  practice  of  the  rite  in  this  form 
to  be  so  generally  given  up  in  the  early  centu- 
ries, and  immersion  to  be  substituted  in  its  place? 
On  this  subject  I  remark  that  it  is  impossible 
to  trace  all  the  steps  of  the  rapid  changes  which 
so  soon  resulted  in  the  ruinous  corruptions  of  the 
Romish  church.  Even  in  the  apostles'  days, 
there  sprang  up  crude  opinions  and  extravagant 
practices,  in  the  bosom  of  the  church.  The 
Lord's  Supper  was  so  perverted  by  the  church 

*  See  authorities  quoted  by  Prof:  Stuart,  Bib.  Repos., 
1833. 


116  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

in  Corinth,  that  the  apostle  sharply  rebukes  them 
(1  Cor.  11:)  for  their  surfeiting  and  drunkenness. 
And  so  prone  were  they  to  abuse  the  institutions 
of  the  gospel,  that  in  the  first  chapter  of  the 
same  epistle,  Paul  gives  utterance  to  this  strange 
declaration:  "I  thank  God  that  I  baptized  none 
of  you,  but  Crispus  and  Gaius,  lest  any  should 
say  that  I  baptized  in  mine  own  name." 

But  in  the  second  and  third  centuries  we  find 
the  state  of  things  far  more  deplorable.  Not 
only  had  the  simple  scriptural  mode  of  baptism 
become  changed,  but  monstrous  abuses  of  it  were 
introduced,  as  exorcism,  unction,  the  giving  of 
salt  and  milk  to  the  candidate,  clothing  him  in 
a  snow-white  robe,  and  crowning  him  w^ith 
evergreen.  It  was  in  these  ages  that  the  imagi- 
nation became  prevalent,  that  there  was  a  saving 
virtue  in  the  very  water  of  baptism.  It  was 
therefore  concluded  that  the  more  water  the  bet- 
ter, and  that  it  should  be  applied  to  the  whole 
body,  that  the  regeneration  might  be  complete. 

Our  Baptist  brethren  are  fond  of  claiming  this 
history  of  the  early  practice  of  Christians,  as 
wholly  in  their  favor.  But  if  they  take  it  as 
authority  in  respect  to  immersion,  they  ought  to 


ORIGIN  OF  IMMERSION.  117 

take  the  other  things  that  I  have  named  along 
with  it.  For  while  it  is  abundantly  proved  that 
immersion  was  now  generally  practiced,  it  is  no 
less  certain  that  it  was  the  general  practice 
equally  early  to  immerse  both  infants  and  adults, 
males  and  females,  in  a  state  of  entire  nudity, 
because  it  was  feared  that  their  garments  might 
prevent  the  water  from  reaching  every  part  of 
the  body,  and  thus  the  regeneration  would  be 
imperfect.  "  There  is  no  historical  fact,"  says 
Robinson,  a  Baptist  historian,  "  There  is  no 
historical  fact  better  authenticated  than  this." 

It  was  in  this  way,  as  history  would  seem  to 
indicate,  that  baptism  by  immersion  came  into 
use.  It  did  not  originate  in  the  supposed  fact, 
tliat  the  early  Christian  fathers  understood  the 
word  baptizo  to  mean  immerse.  It  has  been 
amply  proved,  that  the  simple  idea  which  they 
attached  to  the  word  baptism,  was  that  of  puri- 
fication,  and  so  they  used  these  words,  (baptize 
and  purify,)  indifferently,  the  one  for  the  other, 
without  any  regard  to  the  mode  of  purification. 
This  mode  of  baptism,  therefore,  was  introduced, 
not  from  any  supposed  scripture  authority,  as  to 
the  mode,  but  from  fanciful  interpretations  of 


118  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

certain  passages,  and  from  other  considerations 
connected  with  their  ideas  of  what  the  ordinance, 
in  this  form,  might  be  adapted  to  signify.  Three 
causes  are  assigned  by  Pres.  Beecher,  which  are 
sufficient  to  account  for  the  early  practice  of 
immersion:  1.  Oriental  usages  and  the  habits 
of  warmer  regions.  2.  A  false  interpretation 
of  Rom.  6:  3,  4;  Col.  2:  12;  and  3.  Avery  early 
habit  of  ascribing  peculiar  virtue  to  external 
forms.* 

Baptism  by  immersion,  then,  sprang  up  in  the 
midst  of  other  changes,  which  had  no  warrant 
in  scripture,  and  some  of  which  w^ere  monstrous 
corruptions  of  the  original  institutions  of  Chris- 
tianity. Such  is  the  tendency  of  even  converted 
men,  when  they  leave  their  hold  on  the  Bible, 
and  yield  themselves  up  to  the  impulses  and  vain 
imaginings  of  the  times  in  which  they  live, 
rapidly  to  fall  into  error  and  irregularity,  and  to 
become  the  originators  of  measures,  and  modes, 
and  usages,  which  ever  after  disturb  the  order 
and  mar  the  glory  of  Christ's  house.  For  when 
once  introduced,  these  modes  and  usages  are  apt 

*  Am.  Bib.  Repos.,  1841. 


NOT  ESSENTIAL.  119 

to  be  held  with  a  tenacity  proportioned  to  the 
weakness  of  the  evidence  by  which  they  are  at- 
tempted to  be  justified. 

But  I  turn  away  from  this  scene  of  human 
error  and  confusion.  The  Bible,  and  NOTHING 
BUT  THE  BIBLE,  is  the  creed  of  Protestants; 
and  here  it  is  that  we  find  our  Divine  warrant 
for  baptism,  and  that,  too,  as  we  think,  in  the 
mode  in  which  it  is  practiced  among  ourselves. 
Yet  I  readily  concede  that  we  have  not,  in  the 
Bible,  an  explicit  command  enjoining  this  mode 
of  baptism,  to  the  exclusion  of  other  modes. 
The  obligation  of  baptism  with  water,  in  some 
form,  to  be  administered  with  solemnity  and  de- 
cency, and  in  the  use  of  the  prescribed  words,  is 
enjoined  by  a  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord."  But  the 
precise  mode  of  applying  the  water  was  no  doubt 
designedly  left  undefined,  and  we  are  at  liberty, 
within  the  bounds  of  decency  and  order,  to  vary 
the  mode,  as  occasions  may  require;  but  we  are 
by  no  means  at  liberty  to  break  the  communion 
of  the  church,  on  the  ground  of  any  difference  of 
opinion  or  of  practice,  in  respect  to  the  mere 
external  form  of  administering  a  Christian  sa- 
crament. 


120  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

We  admit,  indeed, that  even  immersion, though 
supported  by  no  scripture  authority,  and  though 
the  grounds  of  its  being  preferred,  as  a  mode  of 
baptism,  be  erroneous  interpretations  of  scrip- 
ture, and  false  reasonings,  may  yet  be  so  admin- 
istered and  received,  as  to  be  an  allowable  mode. 
Yet  it  is  not  the  scriptural  mode;  and  if  v^e  are 
asked  to  regard  immersion  as  essential  to  bap- 
tism, and  to  administer  or  receive  it  under  that 
condition,  in  the  fear  of  God  we  must  not  sub- 
mit to  it.  They  who  make  this  demand,  bind 
that  which  Christ  has  left  free;  and  we  ought 
to  "  give  place  by  subjection,  no,'  not  for  an 
hour,"  (Gal.  2:  5,)  but  to  stand  fast  in  the  liberty 
wherewith  Christ  has  made  us  free.  We  impose 
no  such  bond  upon  our  brethren  as  a  condition 
of  communion,  even  though  the  mode  which  we 
practice  is  amply  proved  to  be  the  mode  of  the 
apostles.  Yet  the  mode  of  baptism  is  not  hap- 
tism,  and  we  have  no  right  to  impose  it  as  such. 
It  is  the  thing,  and  not  the  form,  which  is  com- 
manded. 

Just  so  it  is  with  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
Supper.  We  are  simply  commanded  to  take 
bread,  &c.     But  as  to  the  precise  mode  of  doing 


NOT  ESSENTIAL.  1^1 

this,  we  are  not  particularly  instructed.  And  as 
to  apostolic  usage,  in  this  case,  both  we  and 
our  Baptist  brethren  know  full  well,  that  in 
many  things  we  have  departed  from  the  mode  in 
which  the  apostles  observed  this  sacrament. 
They  met  in  the  night  for  this  purpose;  not  on 
the  Lord's  day,  but  on  Thursday;  not  in  a  house 
of  public  worship,  but  in  an  upper  chamber  of  a 
frivate  dwelling;  they  used  unleavened  bread 
and  the  pure  juice  of  the  grape,  and  received  the 
supper,  not  standing,  nor  sitting,  nor  kneeling, 
but  in  a  recumbent  posture,  half  sitting  and  half 
lying* 

No  intelligent  Christian  will  maintain,  that  ? 
stjict  adherence  to  all  these  particulars  is  neces- 
sary to  the  valid  administration  of  the  Lord's 
Supper.  There  is  not  a  branch  of  Christ's 
church  on  earth,  in  which  all  these  particulars 
are  observed.  By  common  consent,  all  Chris- 
tians, Baptists  as  well  as  others,  concede  that 
these  things  are  not  essential,  and  that  the  prac- 
tice of  even  the  apostles  does  not  bind  us  to  them. 
Surely,  then,  our  Baptist  brethren  ought  to  aban- 

*  gee  Miller  ou  Baptism. 


122  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

don  the  ground  they  have  assumed  as  to  baptism, 
or  else  to  take  the  same  position  in  respect  to 
the  other  sacrament. 

But  it  is  in  vain  for  any  one  to  contend  that 
the  mode  of  applying  the  water  in  baptism  is 
explicitly  defined  in  scripture.  Certainly  we 
have  said  enough  to  show,  that  if  any  mode  can 
claim  a  Divine  warrant,  it  is  that  which  we 
practice.  Sprinkling  certainly  was  very  defi- 
nitely prescribed  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  the 
mode,  and  the  only  mode,  of  performing  the  rite 
which  "  sanctified  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh." 
And  this,  as  we  have  seen,  (Sec.  III.)  was  a  bap- 
tism. It  was  a  baptism,  too,  in  common  use  in 
the  time  of  our  Saviour  and  his  apostles;  and, 
inwoven  as  it  was,  in  their  daily  thoughts  and 
conversation,  it  must  have  been  embraced,  with 
more  or  less  distinctness  in  the  meaning  of  our 
Saviour's  command,  when  he  instituted  the  ordi-^ 
nance  of  Christian  baptism.  Yet,  as  a  mode,  it 
is  only  implied  in  this  command,  and  not  explU 
citly  enjoined.  And  there  is  room,  perhaps,  for 
some  honest  differences  of  opinion  respecting  it. 
Such  differences,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  do  exist 
among  learned  and  pious  men,  and  ought  to  hQ 


A    CONCESSION.  123 

treated  with  candor  and  forbearance,  however 
much  they  are  to  be  deplored. 

The  mode  of  baptism,  therefore,  is  not  essen- 
tial. There  may  be  in  this,  as  in  other  things, 
*'  diversities  of  administration,  but  the  same  spi- 
rit." Sprinkling,  to  my  own  mind,  and  I  trust 
now,  to  the  mind  of  the  reader,  is  the  most 
scriptural.  It  appears,  indeed,  to  be  the  only 
mode  any  where  prescribed  or  made  known  in 
the  scriptures,  and  the  only  mode  illustrated  in 
the  practice  of  John  the  Baptist  and  the  apostles. 
It  is  also  more  appropriate  to  the  spiritual  bless- 
ings intended  to  be  represented  by  baptism,  and 
better  adapted,  than  any  other  mode,  to  the  de^ 
signed  universal  spread  of  the  Christian  religion 
in  all  pUmates,  and  among  all  the  nations. 

I  may  add  the  fact,  that  our  Baptist  brethren 
constantly  complain  of  the  common  trans- 
lation of  the  Bible,  for  retaining  the  words 
baptize  and  baptism,  untranslated.  They  claim 
that  these  words  ought  to  be  rendered  im- 
merse  and  immersion.  They  were  actually 
so  directed  to  be  read  in  one  of  the  first 
issues  of  the  New  Testament  prepared  for  circu- 
lation by  the  Baptist  Bible  Society;  and  this 


IM  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

principle  is  carried  out  in  all  the  translations* 
circulated  by  that  society  in  heathen  languages. 
They  eschew  the  very  words,  hapiize  and  baptism 
in  all  their  translations.  I  name  this  fact  as  a 
concession,  perfectly  satisfactory,  on  the  part  of 
our  Baptist  brethren,  that  they  do  not  regard  our 
present  translation  of  the  Bible — retaining  the 
above  words  to  designate  the  ordinance  in  ques- 
tion— as  justifying  or  even  favoring  immersion, 
as  its  proper  mode. 

We,  then,  are  the  Baptists,  and  they  the  Jm- 
mersionists.  We  claim  the  very  words  of  the 
original  scriptures  as  furnishing  the  only  accu- 
rate  designation  of  the  sacrament  under  conside- 
ration. They  substitute  another  word,  because 
it  indicates  a  particular  mode,  which  the  original 
word,  baptize,  as  it  is  used  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  confessedly  does  not  indicate.  Surely 
we  are  the  Baptists;  and  if  either  party,  in  this 
dispute,  has  a  right  to  demand,  from  all  others, 
conformity  to  its  own  views,  it  is  the  party  which 
plants  itself  on  the  meaning  of  the  original  lan- 
guage of  scripture,  as  used  and  understood  by 
inspired  men,  and  by  the  Saviour  himself.  Yet 
we  claim  no  such  conformity  from  our  brethren, 


IMPORTANT.  125 

as  the  condition  of  our  free  and  open  com- 
munion. 

With  us,  baptism  is  "  not  the  putting  away  of 
the  filth  of  the  flesh;"  (1  Pet.  3:  21.)  Nor  does 
it  consist  in  any  precise  and  exclusive  mode  of 
applying  water,  as  a  symbol  of  the  baptism  of 
the  Spirit.  But  it  is  "the  answer  of  a  good 
conscience  towards  God,"  by  any  application  of 
water  in  this  symbolical  way. 

The  mode  of  baptism,  then,  we  repeat,  is  not 
essential.  It  is  not  of  the  essence  of  Christianity, 
which  stands  not,  as  the  Jewish  ritual  service 
did,  "  in  meats  and  drinks  and  diverse  baptisms," 
not  in  outward  forms  and  modes  of  worship,  but 
"  in  righteousness,  peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy 
Ghost."  "  For  in  Christ  Jesus  neither  circum- 
cision availeth  any  thing,  nor  uncircumcision, 
but  faith  which  worketh  by  love." 

Yet  if  we  regard  the  spirit  as  well  as  the  letter 
of  our  Saviour's  command,  the  very  7node  of 
baptism,  though  not  essential,  is  still  important. 
We  ought  surely  to  practice  that  mode  which 
best  accords  with  the  spirit  of  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation, and  see  to  it  that  we  impose  no  un- 
necessary burdens  i&pon  the  followers  of  Christ  j 


126  MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 

"  which  things  have  indeed  a  show  of  wisdom 
in  will-worship,  and  humility,  and  neglecting  of 
the  body;  not  in  any  honor  to  the  purifying  of 
the  flesh,"  (Coh  2:  23.) 

We  ought  also  to  adopt  the  mode  which  is 
iound  in  experience  to  be  practicable,  in  all  cli« 
mates,  and  in  all  the  circumstances  of  human 
beings,  to  whom  we  are  commanded  to  preach 
the  go&pel,  every  one  of  whom,  in  sickness  or  in 
health,  is  required  to  believe  and  be  baptized 
It  must  be  admitted  that  there  are  certain  con 
ditions  in  which  baptism  by  immersion  could  no< 
be  practiced  without  the  greatest  danger  to  health 
and  to  life.*     And  the  Son  of  man  is  not  come  to 

*  If  immersion  were  the  only  baptism,  then  God 
would  require  of  all  believers  what  some  believers  are 
unable  to  perform.  Persons  in  delicate  health,  or 
converted  in  sickness,  and  near  to  death,  could  not,  o» 
that  supposition,  profess  Christ  before  men,  in  the  only 
appointed  way;  and  the  inhabitants  of  high  latitudes 
where  winter  is  perpetual,  would  be  excluded  from 
baptism  almost  of  necessity,  to  say  nothing  of  the  dif 
Acuities  and  emban'assments  which  often  attend  the 
administration  of  this  ordinance  by  immersion,  even 
in  milder  climates. 

The  following,  which  I  take  from  a  little  work,  en- 


IMMERSION    IMPRACTICABLE.  127 

destroy  men's  lives,  but  to  save  them."  (Luke 
9:  56.) 

Finally,  it  is  especially  important  that  we 
should  entertain  right  principles  on  this  subject, 

titled  "Immersion  not  Christian  Baptism^''  first  pub- 
lished in  the  "  JSPew  England  Puritan,^''  may  stand  in 
the  place  of  a  thousand  similar  facts. 

"A  young  man  was  propounded  for  admission  to 
one  of  our  chm-ches.  But  he  had  been  educated  to 
regard  immersion  as  the  only  mode  of  baptism. 
Nearly  all  his  relatives  were  of  that  belief.  The 
question  was  natm-ally  proposed,  why  he  sliould  leave 
the  sect  in  which  he  had  received  all  his  early  im- 
pressions, and  join  a  psedobaptist  church  ?  He  simply 
replied,  "  My  Tnother  believed  in  immersion ;  therefore  I 
do  not"  On  being  questioned  in  respect  to  this  strange 
reason,  he  responded  to  the  clergyman  who  raised  the 
question,  and  said,  'You  knew  my  mother — do  you 
believe  she  was  a  Christian  ?'  '  I  do  not  question  her 
piety,'  was  the  reply ;  '  I  believe  she  is  now  in  heaven.' 
'  Well,  sir,'  said  the  young  man,  '  years  before  my 
mother's  death,  she  hoped  she  was  a  Christian.  She 
desired  to  profess  Christ  before  men,  to  join  the  peo- 
ple of  God,  and  meet  the  Saviour  at  his  table.  She 
was  in  feeble  health.  Her  physician  told  her  that 
immersion  would  cost  her  her  life.  But  her  physician 
was  not  a  fi-iend  to  immersion,  and  it  was  thought 
that  his  views  might  influence  his  judgment.    A  phy- 


128  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

and  not  make  that  essential,  in  respect  to  which 
Christ  has  left  us  free.  The  grand  error  of  our 
Baptist  brethren,  after  all,  is  this:  not  that  they 
prefer  one  mode  to  another;  nor  that  they  have 
adopted  the  most  impracticable  and  onerous  of 
all  modes,  which,  on  that  account,  they  call  the 
"  cross  of  Christ,^'  when,  in  fact,  it  is  only  a 
cross  of  their  own  making;  nor  that  they  prac- 
tice a  mode  for  which  there  is  no  direct  authori- 
ty in  the  scriptures — but  it  is  that  they  make  the 

MODE    THE    ESSENTIAL    THING    IN    BAPTISM,  without 

which  they  recognize  no  one  as  having  made  a 
credible  profession  of  religion,  or  as  entitled  to 
the  privileges  of  the  visible  church.     They  ac- 

sician  was  sent  for  whose  views  of  baptism  harmon- 
ized with  my  mother's.  His  opinion  was  expressed 
in  these  words :  '  If  you  go  into  the  water,  you  must  die.^ 
This  settled  the  case.  To  profess  and  obey  Christ 
was  impossible,  as  immersion  alone  was  baptism  to 
my  mother.  And  thus,  for  a  long  and  dark  period, 
she  walked  alone,  till  God  called  her  to  his  table  above. 
I  do  not  believe  that  such  a  mode  belongs  to  the  gos- 
pel, and  I  choose  to  unite  myself  to  a  church  in  which 
the  feeble,  the  decrepid,  the  infirm,  the  sick  and  the 
dying,  if  their  hearts  are  right,  may  find  access  below 
tothefoldofChi-ist.'" 


IMMEKSION    IMPRACTICABLE.  129 

cordingly  exclude  from  their  communion  the 
great  body  of  the  faithful  among  men,  and  stand 
aloof  from  the  family  of  believers,  who  equally 
with  themselves,  though  in  a  different  mode, 
have  been  baptized  "  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
AND  OF  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  We 
have  not  so  learned  Christ. 


10 


PART   II. 

THE  SCRIPTURE  WARRANT  FOR  INFANT 
BAPTISM. 


SECTION  I. 

THE  MEANING  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR's  COMttlAND,  (MATT. 
28:  19,)  IN  RESPECT  TO  THE  SUBJECTS  OF  BAP- 
TISM  PROSELYTE  BAPTISM. 

Our  Baptist  brethren  contend  that  the  condi- 
tions of  baptism,  as  inculcated  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, are  such  that  it  cannot  be  lawfully  ad- 
ministered to  any  but  to  adult  believers.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  great  mass  of  professing  Chris- 
tians have  in  all  ages  maintained,  and  do  now 
hold,  that  believers  are  entitled  to  this  ordinance 
both  for  themselves-  and  their  children.^ 

*Of  the  3,000,000,  who'profess  religion  in  the  United 
States,  more  than  three-quarters  consider  infant  bap- 
tism as  valid.  In  Scotland,  nineteen-twentieths  of  the 
people  practice  infant  baptism,  and,  of  all  the  religious 
denominations  of  England  and  Wales,  thiHeen-foiir- 


132  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

The  doctrine  of  Infant  Baptism,  then,  is  the 
subject  of  our  present  discussion.  This,  I  think 
is  taught  in  our  Saviour's  last  command,  consid- 
ered in  connexion  with  the  inspired  history  of 
the  church,  and  other  circumstances,  which  must 
have  controlled  its  meaning  in  the  minds  of  the 
apostles.  If  it  is  thus  taught,  it  has  its  founda- 
tion in  the  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ 
himself,  being  the  chief  corner-stone;  and  I  may 
hope,  by  the  blessing  of  God,  so  to  present  the 
grounds  on  which  this  doctrine  rests,  as  to  cor- 
rect the  views  of  many  who  have  doubts  on  the 
subject,  and  to  confirm  the  faith  of  others  in 
those  covenant  relations,  by  which  it  is  made  the 
duty  of  believing  parents  to  dedicate  their  chil- 

teenths  do  the  same.  It  is  also  practiced  almost  uni- 
versally in  all  the  other  Protestant  chm*ches  of  Europe, 
and  by  the  Waldenses,  the  Armenians,  and  the  Syi'ian 
Clnistians,  and  the  whole  of  the  Roman  and  Greek 
chm'ches. 

We  are  right  then,  in  saj^ng,  that  the  great  mass  of 
professmg  Christians  do  now  hold,  that  believers  are 
entitled  to  this  ordinance  both  for  themselves  and 
theh  children.  And  they  claim  scripture  authority 
for  this  belief  On  what  grounds,  and  with  bow 
much  reason,  we  have  yet  to  consider. 


BAPTISM  OF  PROSELYTES.  133 

dren  to  God  in  baptism,  and  the  right  of  minis- 
ters to  administer  this  ordinance  to  the  infant 
offspring  of  believers. 

It  will  not  be  doubted  that  the  last  command 
of  our  Saviour  is  applicable  to  all  regularly  con- 
stituted ministers  of  the  gospel  in  all  ages. 
Hence  the  promise  appended  to  it;  "Lol  I  am 
with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world."     (Matt.  28:20.) 

The  command,  then,  to  those  who  preach  the 
gospel,  is  to  TEACH  all  nations.  The  word  here 
rendered  teach,  properly  signifies  to  disciple,  or 
to  proselyte.  This  is  admitted.  The  ablest 
scholars  bear  harmonious  testimony  to  this  sig- 
nification of  the  word.  The  meaning  of  the 
command,  therefore,  as  it  was  understood  by  the 
apostles,  is  that  all  those  who  should  be  con- 
verted under  their  ministry,  all  whom  they  should 
disciple  or  proselyte,  to  the  faith  of  the  gospel, 
were  to  be  baptized.  And  this  meaning  of  the 
word  proselyte  or  disciple,  as  it  was  then  com- 
monly used,  must  have  guided  their  perception 
of  the  meaning  of  the  command. 

The  matter  of  proselyting  persons  from  the 
world,  to  the  faith  of  the  true  church,  was  by  no 


134  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

means  new,  in  the  time  of  our  Saviour.  Nor 
was  it  peculiar  to  the  Christian  dispensation. 
It  was  a  matter  of  frequent  occurrence,  and  was 
familiar  to  Christ  and  his  disciples  in  the  Jewish 
church.  Persons  of  other  nations,  by  conquest 
or  otherwise,  were  often  added  to  the  Jewish 
:ommiaaity,  and  were  admitted  to  the  privileges 
of  the  Hebrew  church  on  profession  of  their 
aith.  But,  as  the  Jews  considered  the  Gentiles 
mclean  and  impure,  it  was  natural  for  them, 
svhen  such  persons  were  converted  to  their  faith, 
:o  insist  on  their  being  CQYemomdWy  purified,  by 
he  application  of  water.  Hence  such  proselytes 
ivere  not  only  subjected  to  the  Jewish  rite  of 
lircumcision,  but  the  custom  had  sprung  up  of 
ilso  baptizing  them.  And  this  custom  had  be- 
come universal  in  such  cases. 

The  baptism  of  proselytes  is  not  any  where 
commanded  in  the  Old  Testament.  Nor  is  it 
possible  to  determine  at  what  time  the  custom 
was  introduced.  But  there  is  probable  evidence 
that,  long  before  the  coming  of  Christ,  it  was 
common  among  the  Jews  to  baptize  their  con- 
verts from  the  Gentiles.  And  the  rite  of  bap- 
tism in  these  cases  was  coextensive  with  that  oJ 


BAPTISM  OF  PROSELYTES.  135 

circumcision.  As  the  children  of  these  converts 
were  required  to  be  circumcised,  so  it  was  the 
uniform  custom  to  subject  them  to  baptism  also.* 

„  *  As  oui*  Baptist  brethren  have  labored  hard  to 
raise  doubts  as  to  the  prevalence  of  the  Jewish  prose- 
lyte baptism  previous  to  the  time  of  Christ,  it  may  be 
proper  to  refer  to  a  few  of  the  testimonies  on  which 
it  rests,  as  a  historical  fact. 

Maimonides,  a  Jew  and  the  great  interpreter  of  the 
Jewish  law,  says,  "  Israel  was  admitted  into  covenant 
by  three  things,  viz. :  by  circumcision,  baptism  and 
sacrifice.  Baptism  was  in  the  Avilderness  before  the 
giving  of  the  law."  Again,  he  says,  "Abundance  of 
proselytes  were  made  in  the  days  of  David  and  Solo- 
mon before  private  men ;  and  the  great  Sanhedrim 
was  full  of  care  about  this  business ;  for  they  would 
not  cast  them  out  of  the  church,  because  they  were 
baptized.  And  again,  "  Whenever  any  heathen  will 
take  the  yoke  of  the  law  upon  him,  circumcision,  hap- 
tism  and  a  voluntary  oblation  are  required.  *  *  *  That 
was  a  common  axiom,  no  man  is  a  proselyte  until  he 
be  circumcised  and  baptized. 

Calniet,  in  his  Dictionary  (Art.  Proselytes,)  says, 
"  The  Jews  require  three  things  to  a  complete  prose- 
lyte; &apfi5?n,  circumcision  and  sacrifice;  but  for  wo- 
men only  baptism  and  sacrifice.'^ 

Dr.  Wall  says  of  proselytes  to  th^  Jewish  religion, 
"  They  were  all  baptized,  males  and  females,  adults 


136  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

The  baptism  of  children,  then,  as  is  highly- 
probable,  was  common  among  the  Jews,  when 
the  Saviour's  command  was  given,  and  had  been 
for  a  long  time.  It  was  just  as  much  a  matter 
of  course  to  baptize  the  children  of  the  prose- 
lytes to  Judaism  as  it  was  to  baptize  the  pro- 
selytes themselves.  This  was  known  to  our 
Saviour  and  his  disciples,  and  to  all  among  the 
Jews,   as  the   prevalent   custom,  a  custom   too 

and  infants.  This  was  their  constant  practice^  from 
the  time  of  Moses  to  that  of  our  Saviour,  and  from 
that  period  to  the  present  day."  But  the  testimonies 
are  too  numerous  to  be  quoted  or  even  referred  to  in 
this  note.  See  Kurtz  on  Baptism,  and  other  works, 
in  which  this  historical  fact  appears  to  be  satisfacto- 
rily proved. 

Professor  Stuart  thinks  the  probabilities  against  the 
practice  of  proselyte  baptism  in  the  time  of  our 
Saviour.  He  admits  however  that  "  the  impression 
has  become  widely  extended  in  the  Christian  church, 
tliat  such  was  the  fact,"  and  that  a  majority  of  the 
okler  \STiters  have  adopted  the  opinion  of  Selden, 
Lightfoot,  Dantz,  Buxtorf,  Schoothgen,  Wetstein  and 
others,  that  the  baptism  of  proselytes  was  common 
when  John  the  Baptist  made  his  appearance  as  a 
public  teacher."    (Bib.  Repos.,  Vol.  3,  pp.  342,  355,) 


BAPTISM  OF  PROSELYTES.  137 

!vhich  is  continued  to  the  present   day  in  all 

Jewish  synagogues. 
These  were  the  circumstances  in  which  our 

Saviour  commanded  his  disciples  to  proselyte 
and  baptize  all  nations.  Who  then  were  to  be 
the  subjects  of  this  baptism?  Was  it  intended 
to  be  restricted  to  adults  only?  Why  then  did 
not  the  Saviour  prohibit  the  baptism  of  infants, 
when  he  gave  this  general  command?  And  in 
the  absence  of  any  restriction,  must  not  the  dis- 
ciples have  understood  him  to  mean  the  baptism, 
which  both  he  and  they  had  been  accustomed  to 
observe  among  the  Jews,  viz.:  the  baptism  of 
children  with  their  parents  ?  They  knew  of  no 
other  law  of  baptism,  in  the  case  of  proselytes 
to  a  new  form  of  religion,  but  that  which  re- 
quired its  administration  both  to  the  proselyte 
and  his  children.  Such  a  thing  as  a  believing 
parent  presenting  himself  for  baptism,  and  with- 
holding his  children,  had  not  been  heard  of,  ex- 
cepting, perhaps,  in  the  case  of  John's  baptism, 
in  which  it  is  not  known  that  children  were 
embraced. 

John's  baptism,  however,  was  peculiar  and 
temporary.     It  was  simply  a  preparatory  rite,  o^ 


138  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

short  continuance.  It  was  not  administered  in 
the  name  of  Christ,  and  some  whom  John  had 
baptized,  we  are  told,  had  "  not  so  much  as  heard 
whether  there  be  any  Holy  Ghost"  (Acts  19: 
2.)  It  is  certain  also  that  the  baptism  of  John 
had  not  become  a  custom.  It  was  administered 
only  by  himself.  And,  besides,  it  had  nothing 
to  do  with  the  reception  of  new  'proselytes  or 
disciples^  into  the  chuch.  It  was  the  baptism 
of  repentance,  administered  to  the  back-slidden 
Jews  indiscriminately,  to  prepare  them  for  the 
reception  of  the  Redeemer.  But  our  Saviour 
was  now  directing  his  disciples  concerning  a 
baptism  to  be  administered  to  such  as  they 
should  ?iCi\i'a\\y  proselyte  to  the  true  faith;  and 
the  language  made  use  of  proves,  with  sufficient 
clearness,  that  the  thought  in  his  mind  must 
have  been  that  of  the  Jewish  proselyte  baptism, 
which,  as  we  have  seen,  was  then  universally 
practiced.  This  baptism  was,  of  course,  familiar 
to  the  minds  of  the  disciples;  and  when  they 
were  commanded  to  disciple  and  to  baptize,  how 
could  they  understand  the  Saviour  to  mean  any 
thing  else  than  this  baptism? 

In  these  circumstances,   it  is  plain,  that,  in- 


BAPTISM  OF  PROSELYTES.  139 

stead  of  needing  an  express  command  to  author- 
ize them  to  baptize  the  children  of  those  who 
should  be  converted  under  their  ministry,  the 
disciples  would  have  needed  an  express  prohi- 
bition, to  prevent  their  so  doing,  had  it  been  the 
Saviour's  design  to  restrict  their  baptism  to 
adults.  But  no  such  prohibition  was  given,  or 
even  intimated. 

I  am  thus  led  to  the  conclusion,  that  our 
Saviour's  command  in  the  circumstances  in 
which  it  v^as  given,  inculcates  the  doctrine  of 
infant  baptism.  It  must  have  been  so  under- 
stood by  those  to  whom  it  was  addressed.  It 
must  also  have  been  intended  by  the  Saviour  to 
bte  so  understood;  and  in  view  of  the  prevalent 
usage  of  the  time  in  which  it  was  spoken,  I  can 
not  understand  it  otherwise. 

But  there  are  other  considerations,  yet  to  be 
stated,  which  show  conclusively,  that  our  Saviour 
and  his  apostles  designed  to  teach  the  doctrine  of 
Infant  Baptism,  and  that  baptism,  as  a  standing 
ordinance,  a  sacrament  of  the  Christian  church, 
should  be  administered  to  the  children  of  be- 
lievers, as  well  as  to  believers  themselves. 


SECTION  II. 

IN  ALL  THE  COVENANTS  OF  GOD  WITH  MEN,  CHILDREN 
ARE  INCLUDED  WITH  THEIR  PARENTS. 

Every  believer,  by  making  a  public  profession 
of  religion,  enters  formally  into  covenant  with 
God.  By  his  conversion  he  has  become  a  child 
of  God,  a  willing  subject  of  his  government,  and 
now  by  a  public  profession,  he  recognizes  this 
relation  of  submission,  dependence,  love  and 
obedience,  and  pledges  himself  to  its  duties  and 
obligations.  He  is  thus  formally  in  covenant 
with  God. 

Now,  as  to  the  meaning  and  purport  of  such 
a  covenant,  I  have  to  remark,  (and  I  wish  this 
point  to  be  well  considered,)  that  in  all  the  forms 
in  which  God  ever  invited  or  required  men  to 
enter  into  a  covenant  of  obedience  to  himself, 
previous  to  the  time  of  Christ  and  the  Christian 
dispensation,  children  were  included  with  their 
parents.  It  was  so  in  God's  covenant  with 
Adam;  and  thus,  "By one  man  sin  entered  into 
the  world,  and  death  by  sin;  and  so  death  passed 


COVENANT  RELATIONS.  141 

•pon  all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned."     (Rom, 
):  12.)     Whatever  mystery  may  be  involved  in 
his  transaction,  nothing  can  be  plainer  than  the 
"act,  that,  as  children  of  Adam,  we  and  all  man- 
kind are  even  now  experiencing-the  consequences 
)f  this  covenant  obligation  of  our  common  par.ent 
;o  God,  whose  law  he  disobeyed.     And  what- 
ever disputes  may  have  arisen,  as  to  the  grounds 
and  reasons  of  our   sufferings  in  consequence  of 
A.dam's  sin,  the  fact  is  one   of  experience,  as 
well  as  of  revelation.     It  is  admitted  by  all,  and 
all  are  involved  in  it,  infants  as  well  as  adults. 

The  children  of  Noah  were  also  embraced  in 
the  covenant,  which  God  made  w^ith  him. 
"  Moved  with  fear,  he  prepared  an  ark  to  the 
saving  of  his  house:'  (Heb.  11:  7.)  "With 
thee,"  said  God,  "  wall  I  establish  my  covenant: 
and  thou  shalt  come  into  the  ark,  thou  and  thy 
sons,  and  thy  wife,  and  thy  son's  wives  with 
thee."  (Gen.  6:  18.)  And  God  dealt  favorably 
with  the  children  of  Lot,  for  their  father's  sake. 
(Gen.  19.) 

In  the  case  of  Abraham,  this  covenant  rela- 
tion of  children  with  their  parents  is  still  more 
explicitly  declared.     "  And  I  will  establish  my 


11 


142  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed 
after  thee,  in  their  generations,  for  an  everlasting 
covenant;  to  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy 
seed  after  thee."  (Gen.  17:7.)  So  the  sign 
and  seal  of  the  covenant  was  required  to  be  ad- 
ministered to  his  children,  as  well  as  to  himself. 
And  the  children  of  every  Jewish  parent  were  to 
be  circumcised,  as  the  condition  of  his  own  in- 
terest in  the  covenant.     (Gen.  17:  12,  13.) 

But  if  God,  in  all  his  covenant  dealings  wuth 
men,  for  four  thousand  yeai^  before  the  coming 
of  Christ,  had  invariably  included  children  with 
their  parents — if,  in  maintaining  this  principle^ 
he  had  even  suffered  the  whole  human  race  to 
be  involved  in  ruin,  in  consequence  of  Adam's 
»in — then,  is  it  not  reasonable  to  conclude  that 
there  is  something  in  the  very  nature  of  the  re- 
lation of  parents  and  children,  which  renders 
such  covenant  engagements,  as  God  required  in 
those  early  ages,  proper  and  even  necessary  ?  Is 
not  the  child  so  dependent  on  the  parent  for  the 
influences  which  guide  and  mould  his  character, 
that  they  cannot  be  separated  in  their  moral  re- 
sponsibilities? Must  not  the  parent  be,  in  a 
great  measuie,  responsible  for  the  character  of 


COVENANT  RELITIONS.  143 

the  child,  especially  during  the  periods  of  infancy 
and  childhood?  Was  it  likely  then,  nay,  was 
it  possible,  that  God,  in  the  new  form  of  his 
covenant  with  believers,  under  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation, should  have  sundered  the  connexion 
between  parents  and  their  children?  This,  I 
think,  is  not  for  a  moment  to  be  admitted.  But 
there  are  other  conclusive  proofs,  that  Christ,  in 
the  new  dispensation  of  his  grace,  did  not  intend 
to  interrupt  or  destroy  this  long  acknowledged 
relation. 


SECTION   III. 

THE    CHURCH    THE    SAME    UNDER    THE    JEWISH    ANI 
CHRISTIAN    DISPENSATIONS. 

The  covenant  which  God  made  with  Abra- 
ham, including  children  with  their  parents,  was, 
as  we  have  seen,  "  an  everlasting  covenant.^'  It 
has  never  been  abolished,  and  never  can  be.  It 
is  declared  in  passages  already  referred  to,  and 
in  other  places  in  the  Old  Testament,  to  have 
been  with  Abraham  and  his  seed,  "  for  an  ever- 
lasting covenant,"  and  is  spoken  of  in  the  New 
Testament  as  to  exist "  for  ever."  (Luke  1 :  55.) 
Paul  declares  that  "  the  law,  which  was  four 
hundred  and  thirty  years  after,  can  not  disannul 
[it]  that  it  should  make  the  promise  of  none 
effect,"  and  that,  as  a  "  covenant  of  promise,"  it 
was  "confirmed  of  God  in  Christ."  (Gal.  3: 
17.)  And  believers  under  the  gospel  are  spoken 
of  as  children  of  this  covenant  with  Abraham. 
They  are  also  denominated  "  children  of  Abra- 
ham," and  "  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  accord- 
ing to  the  promise^  (Gal.  3:  7,  29,)  and  Abra 


THE  CHURCH  PERPETUAL.  145 

ham  is  called  "  the  father  of  us  all."     (Rom.  4: 
16.) 

Now  it  is  apparent  from  such  declarations  as 
these,  that  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham  is 
God's  covenant  with  the  church  in  all  ages.  It 
was  not  abolished  by  the  coming  of  Christ,  but 
was  confirmed  in  him,  and  remains  essentially 
the  same  under  the  Jewish  and  Christian  dispen- 
sations. But  if  the  covenant  of  the  church  is 
the  same,  then  it  is  essentially  the  same  church 
under  both  dispensations.  The  church  is  consti- 
tuted by  its  covenant  with  God,  and  if  its  cove- 
nant remains  unchanged,  the  church  is  the  same. 
Hence  the  church,  under  both  dispensations,  is 
represented  as  the  same  in  numerous  passages  ot 
scripture. 

The  ancient  predictions  of  the  conversion  oi 
the  Gentiles,  and  of  the  prosperity  and  glory  of 
the  church  under  the  gospel,  do  not  indicate  that 
a  new  church  was  then  to  be  established  in  the 
earth.  Such  an  idea  does  not  seem  to  have  en- 
tered  the  minds  of  the  prophets.  On  the  contra- 
ry,  they  uniformly  represent  that  the  Zion  of  the 
Old  Testament,  the  church  at  that  time  existing 
in  Israel,  was  to  be  enlarged  and  beautified  wjtb 
XO 


146  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

new  light  and  glory  by  the  coming  of  the  Re^ 
deemer.  Their  language  and  their  imagery  all 
indicate  this.  It  was  to  the  church  of  his  owa 
times,  that  Isaiah  gave  the  following  encourage-s 
ment:  "Arise,  shine;  for  thy  light  is  come,  and, 
the  glory  of  the  Lord  is  risen  upon  thee.''  "  And 
the  Gentiles  shall  come  to  thy  light,  and  kings 
to  the  brightness  of  thy  rising.  Lift  up  thine 
eyes  round  about  and  see;  all  they  gather  them^ 
selves  together,  they  come  to  thee :  thy  sons  shall 
come  from  far,  and  thy  daughters  shall  be  nursed 
at  thy  side."  (Isaiah  60:  1, 3, 4,  &c.  See  also 
Isaiah  49:  19-21.)  And  so  of  the  prophecies 
of  the  Old  Testament  generally.  They  evidently 
contemplate,  not  a  new  church  under  the  gospel, 
but  new  glory  and  blessings  to  the  church  or  the 
house  of  Israel. 

The  same  idea  is  fully  carried  out  in  the  New 
Testament.  Christ  and  his  apostles  do  not  claim 
for  the  church  under  the  gospel,  an  origin  and 
constitution  distinct  from  that  of  the  former  dis- 
pensation. On  the  contrary,  they  claim  for  it 
an  identity  with  the  church  of  the  patriarchs  and 
prophets.  Christ  declares  that  "  Many  shall 
come  from  the  east  and  west,  and  shall  sit  dow^n 


THE  CHUKCH  PERPETUAL.  147 

with  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  And  this  he  explains  to 
be  the  same  kingdom,  from  which  "  the  children 
of  the  kingdom,"  the  Jews,  for  their  unfaithful- 
ness, should  "be  cast  out."  (Mat,  8:  11,  12.) 
And  again  he  says,  that  "  the  kingdom  of  God 
shall  be  taken  from  [them]  and  given  to  a  na-» 
tion  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof."  (Mat, 
21:  43.)  Still  it  is  the  same  church,  though 
enlarged  and  beautified.  It  is  taken  from  the 
Jews,  who  had  long  abused  its  privileges,  and  is 
given  to  the  Gentiles. 

In  perfect  accordance  with  these  statements 
and  predictions,  Paul  represents  the  Gentile  be- 
lievers as  grafFed  into  the  same  olive-tree,  froni 
which  the  Jews,  for  their  unbelief  were  broken 
off,  and  to  which  he  says,  "  they  also,"  that  is 
the  Jews,  "  if  they  abide  not  still  in  unbelief, 
shall  be  grafFed  in :  for  God  is  able  to  graff  theca 
in  again."  What  is  this  olwe4ree,  if  it  be  not 
the  true  church  in  covenant  with  God,  whether 
composed  of  Jews  or  Gentiles?  Therefore, 
"  Boast  not  against  the  branches.  But  if  thou 
boast,  thou  bearest  not  the  root,  but  the  root 
thee,"     (Rom.  11:  17,  18,23.) 


148  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

Now,  in  view  of  these  representations,  nothing 
can  be  more  certain,  than  that  the  visible  church 
of  God,  under  both  dispensations,  is  substantially 
the  same  body.  The  religion  of  the  Old  Testa-* 
ment,  then,  is  not  distinct  from  that  of  the  New, 
as  if  it  were  another  system.  The  one  is  but  the 
filling  up  of  the  imperfect  outline  which  was 
drawn  in  the  other,  and  the  true  church,  in  all 
ages,  is  essentially  the  same.  It  has  held  essen-» 
tially  the  same  doctrines,  enjoyed  the  same  spir-* 
itual  promises,  though  with  different  degrees  of 
light,  has  been  constituted  upon  the  same  covC'* 
Hant,  and  professed  the  same  religion. 


SECTION  IV. 

BAPTISM  THE  SUBSTITUTE  FOR  CIRCmiCISION. 

I  am  now  prepared  to  show  that — the  cove- 
nant and  the  church  remaining  the  same — the 
sis;n  and  seal  of  the  covenant,  though  changed 
in  its  form,  retains  all  its  original  significancy 
and  propriety,  in  its  application  both  to  believers 
and  their  children.  Under  the  ancient  dispen- 
sation of  the  covenant,  there  was  an  instituted 
external  observance,  or  rite,  prerequisite  to  a 
regular  standing  in  the  visible  church.  That 
instituted  rite  was  circumcision,  which  was  ad- 
ministered to  both  believers  and  their  children. 
Under  the  new  dispensation  of  the  same  covenant, 
with  the  same  church,  circumcision  has  beer 
discontinued  and  abolished.  But  there  is  another 
observance,  instituted  by  our  Saviour,  more  sim- 
ple and  convenient  and  better  suited,  than  the 
bloody  rite  of  circumcision,  to  the  free  spirit  and 
more  "  easy  yoke"  of  the  gospel.  Yet  it  holds 
the  same  relation  to  the  covenant.  It  is,  as  cir 
cumcision  was,  prerequisite  to  a  regular  stand- 


150  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

ing  in  the  visible  church.  This  new  observance 
or  rite,  is  baptism,  which,  as  a  matter  of  fa<;t, 
and  by  our  Saviour's  command,  occupies  the 
same  place,  in  respect  to  faith  and  profession, 
that  circumcision  occupied  under  the  law.  The 
one,  therefore,  in  these  respects,  is  a  substitute 
for  the  other;  and  if  that  which  is  done  awaj 
was  applied  to  the  children  of  believers,  why 
should  not  that  which  has  taken  its  place  be  so 
applied? 

The  covenant  is  the  same  now  as  then,  and 
the  natural  relation  of  children  to  their  pa- 
rents, under  the  covenant,  the  same.  No  change 
has  been  produced  in  these  respects  by  the  gos- 
pel. Parents  have  the  same  authority  now  as 
formerly,  the  same  power  of  influence,  and  the 
same  obligation  rests  on  them,  and  is  rather  en- 
forced than  enfeebled,  to  bring  up  their  children 
"  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord." 
(Eph.  6:  4.)  And  children  sustain  the  same  re- 
lation of  dependence  now  as  formerly,  and  are  ab 
susceptible  of  moulding  influences  from  their 
parents.  Why  then  should  not  the  rite,  prere- 
quisite to  a  regular  standing  in  the  church,  be 
administered  to  the  children  of  belie^^ers  now,  as 


CmCUMCISION  AND  BAPTISM.  151 

well  as  under  the  former  dispensation?  Surely 
the  fact  that  its  form  has  been  changed  and 
mitigated,  can  not  justify  us  in  withholding  it,  so 
long  as  its  significancy  and  propriety  remain  the 
same.  No  one  pretends  that  it  has  been  forbid- 
den; and  in  the  absence  of  all  prohibition,  I  can 
imagine  no  reason  why  it  should  be  discontinued 
in  respect  to  children,  while  it  is  administered  to 
adults. 

Circumcision  was  both  a  sign  and  a  seal  of 
the  faith  of  those  under  the  old  dispensation, 
who  entered  into  covenant  with  God.  Abraham, 
says  Paul,  (Rom.  4:  11,)  "  received  the  sign  of 
circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the 
faith  which  he  had  yet  being  uncircumcised,  that 
he  might  be  the  father  of  all  them  that  believe, 
though  they  be  not  circumcised."  Here  circum- 
cision was  a  sign.  It  represented  the  circum- 
cision of  the  heart,  or  regeneration.  For  "  cir- 
cumcision," says  Paul,  again,  (Rom.  2:  29,) 
"  is  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the 
lettc.  whose  praise  is  not  of  men,  but  of  God." 
It  was  also  a  seal.  It  confirmed  "  the  righteous- 
ness of  the  faith  which  he  had,"  or  his  accept- 
ance of  the  conditions  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 


152  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

IS  a  sealed  instrument  confirms  the  engagements 
)f  a  contract. 

So  baptism  is  both  a  sign  and  a  seal.  As  a 
ign,  it  represents  the  washing  of  regeneration, 
)r  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  As  a  seal,  it 
s,  on  the  part  of  those  who  receive  it,  a  confirm- 
tion  of  their  covenant  engagements  to  God, 
vhile  it  assures  them,  that,  if  their  hearts  and 
ives  are  conformed  to  its  sacred  import,  their 
aith,  like  that  of  Abraham,  is  imputed  to  them 
for  righteousness. 

There  are  numerous  other  passages,  which 
show  that  baptism,  under  the  gospel,  takes  the 
place  of  circumcision  under  the  law,  and  that  its 
significancy  is  the  same.  "  Beware  of  the  con- 
cision," says  Paul,  (Phil.  3 :  2,  3,)  that  is,  beware 
of  those  persons  who  lay  great  stress  on  the  right 
Df  circumcision,  "  for  we,"  that  is,  we  who  have 
been  baptized,  "  are  the  circumcision,  which 
vvorship  God  in  the  Spirit."  Again,  he  says  to 
:he  Colossians,  (Col.  2:  11,  12,)  "Ye  are  cir- 
cumcised with  the  circumcision  made  without 
hands,  in  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the 
flesh  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ;  buried  with 
him  in  baptism."     The  meaning  is,  in  other 


CIRCUMCISION  AND  BAPTISM.  153 

words,  that  having  been  baptized,  spiritually, 
"  ye  are^^  thereby  "  circumcised'^  spiritually,  that 
is,  with  the  "  circumcision  made  without  hands," 
&c. 

I  have  already  remarked,  (Part  I.,  Sec.  X.,) 
that  both  the  circumcision  and  baptism  here 
spoken  of,  are  plainly  spiritual,  and  that,  there- 
fore, the  expression  "  buried  with  him  in  bap- 
tism," can  have  no  reference  whatever  to  the 
mode  of  baptism.  But  if  circumcision  and  bap- 
tism, in  their  spiritual  import,  are  the  same — as 
they  are  here  seen  to  be — and  the  one  was  in- 
stituted in  the  church  as  a  sealing  ordinance,  on 
the  removal  of  the  other,  what  is  this  but  the 
substitution  of  the  one  for  the  other?  But  it  is, 
objected,  that  in  numerous  instances,  from  the 
beginning  of  John's  ministry  to  the  death  of 
Christ,  the  same  persons  w^ere  both  circumcised 
and  baptized,  and  that  Paul  circumcised  Timo- 
thy, after  he  had  been  baptized.  (Acts  16:  3.) 
It  is  asked,  how  can  one  of  these  ordinances  be 
considered  as  substituted  for  the  other,  when 
both  were 'practised  at  the  same  time? 

I  answer,  that  the  covenant  of  grace  was  not 
perfected  in  Christ,  until  his  own  blood,  "  the 


12 


154  INFAJrt  BAPTISM. 

blood  of  the  everlasting  covenant/'  was  slied 
It  was  perfected  in  his  ovv^n  death;  and  so  after 
his  resurrection,  he  opened  its  full  import  to  the 
apostles,  and  then,  for  the  first  tiroe,  commission- 
ed them  to  go  and  publish  it  to  all  nations. 
Baptism,  therefore,  could  not  have  been  made 
the  sign  and  seal  of  the  perfected  covenant  until 
now.  Accordingly  we  find  that  it  was  just  at 
this  time,  and  not  before^  that  our  Lord  formally 
instituted  the  sacrament  of  baptism. 

Before  this,  during  the  ministry  of  John  and 
of  Christ,  the  church  was  in  a  state  of  transition 
from  the  former  to  the  new  dispensation.  It  is 
not  surprising,  therefore,  that  there  was  some 
"mingling  of  ordinances,  and  some  approach  in 
the  form  and  import  af  the  rites  of  the  old  dis- 
pensation to  those  of  the  new.  But  they  were 
not  yet  the  permanent  institutions  of  the  gospel. 
So  the  baptism  of  John  was  only  preparatory  to 
the  rite  of  Christian  baptism.  It  was  adminis- 
tered on  profession  of  repentance  and  faith  in 
the  speedy  appearance  of  him,  who  was  to  bap- 
tize "  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire."  And 
the  baptisms  performed  by  the  disciples  of  Christy 
while  he  was  yet  with  them^  were  administered 


CmCUMCISION  AND  BAPTISM.  155 

to  those  Jews  that  believed  on  him,  as  the  Mes- 
siah, all  of  whom,  like  the  apostles  themselves, 
waited  for  a  fuller  manifestation  of  his  character 
and  offices.  Both  John's  baptism  and  that  of 
the  disciples,  previous  to  the  resurrection,  looked 
for  something  yet  to  come,  and  were  not  that 
baptism,  "  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  which  was  insti- 
tuted by  our  Saviour,  after  his  resurrection,  as  a 
standing  sacrament  in  the  Christian  church. 
This,  I  think,  sufficiently  accounts  for  the  con- 
tinuance of  circumcision  among  the  converted 
Jews,  who  were  baptized  during  the  Saviour's 
personal  ministry. 

As  to  the  circumcision  of  Timothy  by  Paul, 
it  was  evidently  done  to  avoid  the  opposition 
and  reproaches  of  the  Jews.  It  was  a  mere 
measure  of  expediency  to  open  the  way  for 
greater  usefulness,  in  accordance  with  Paul's 
uniform  and  avowed  principle  of  conduct. 
(1  Cor.  9:  20.)  "  And  unto  the  Jew^s,  I  became 
as  a  Jew,  that  I  might  gain  the  Jews."  But  in 
such  cases,  circumcision  was  not  administered  as 
a  sealing  ordinance,  but  only  as  a  mark  of  na- 
tional distinction.     Nor  did  it  interfere  with  the 


156  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

established  institutions  of  the  gospel.  Otherwise 
Paul  would  have  resisted  it,  as  he  did  on  another 
occasion,  when  certain  Judaizing  teachers  un- 
dertook to  impose  circumcision  on  the  Gentile 
converts,  "  To  whom,"  he  says,  "  we  gave  place 
by  subjection,  no  not  for  an  hour."  (Gal.  2:  1- 
5.     See  Acts  15:  1,  28,  29;  and  21:23-26.) 

It  thus  appears  that  when  the  ancient  S2^?i  and 
seal  of  the  covenant  which  God  made  with  his 
people,  for  an  everlasting  covenant,  was  abo- 
lished, another  ordinance  was  instituted  in  the 
same  church,  under  the  same  covenant,  of  'pre- 
cisely the  same  import,  and  for  the  same  purpose, 
viz.,  as  a  sign  and  seal  of  the  righteousness  of 
faith.  And  we  ask  in  vain  for  a  reason  why  the 
latter  should  not  be  applied  to  the  children  of  be- 
lievers, as  the  former  certainly  was.  I  say,  we 
ask  in  vain,  for  it  is  in  vain  to  say,  as  is  often 
said,  that,  since  infants  have  not  faith,-it  can  not 
be  proper  to  apply  to  them  the  sign  and  seal 
of  faith. 

This  objection  lies  with  equal  weight  against 
infant  circumcision.  But  we  know  that  circum- 
cision was  administered  to  infants  eight  days 
old,  by  the  command  of  God.     If  the  one  is  im- 


CIRCUMCISION  AND  BAPTISM.  157 

proper,  on  this  account,  the  other  was,  and  God 
is  in  fault  for  having  required  it.  Moreover,  if 
faith  is  a  prerequisite  to  baptism,  it  is  also  a  pre- 
requisite to  salvation.  "  He  that  believeth  and 
is  baptized,  shall  be  saved;  he  that  believeth 
not  shall  be  damned."  (Mark  16:  16.)  If  then 
you  deny  baptism  to  infants,  on  the  ground  that 
they  are  incapable  of  exercising  faith,  you 
ought  also,  for  the  same  reason,  to  deny  the  pos- 
sibility of  their  salvation,  for  faith  and  salvation 
are  as  indissolubly  linked  together  in  the  scrip- 
tures, as  are  faith  and  baptism.  If  you  admit 
that  children  are  saved,  when  they  die  in  infancy, 
without  the  exercise  of  an  intelligent  faith,  then 
surely  their  lack  of  faith  can  not  consistently  be 
urged  to  debar  them  from  the  privilege  of  bap- 
tism. And  if  you  say,  they  have  faith,  which  is 
known  to  God,  though  not  manifested  to  us,  and 
that  this  is  the  ground  of  their  salvation,  then 
they  have  the  very  thing  that  you  claim  as  pre- 
requisite to  their  baptism,  and  your  objection  de- 
stroys itself. 

Again,  it  is  sometimes  asked.  What  good  can 
baptism  do  to  an  unconscious  infant?  So  it  was 
asked,  in  respect  to  the  Jews,  "  What  profit  is 


158  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

there  of  circumcision?"  Paul  answered,  "  Much 
every  way^''  and  then  added,  "  For  what  if  some" 
^— who  had  been  circumcised — "  did  not  believe? 
Shall  their  unbelief  make  the  faith  of  God  with-^ 
out  effect?  God  forbid:  yea,  let  God  be  true, 
but  every  man  a  liar."  (Rom.  3:  1-3.)  And 
again  he  says,  "  Circumcision  verily  profiteth,  if 
thou  keep  the  law;  but  if  thou  be  a  breaker  of 
the  law,  thy  circumcision  is  made  uncircumci- 
sion."     (Rom.  2:  25.) 

So  the  advantages  of  infant  baptism  are  many 
and  great.  It  is  a  sign  of  interesting  truths,  an(5 
a  seal  of  inestimable  blessings.  Christ  will 
honor  his  own  institution;  and  when  he  suffers 
little  children  thus  to  be  brought  unto  him,  it  is, 
that  he  may  bless  them.  Their  right  of  mem- 
bership in  the  visible  church  is  thus  recognized 
and  ratified,  and  they  are  introduced  to  the  spe- 
cial care  and  instruction  of  the  church.  And 
though  we  can  not  define  all  the  blessings  which 
the  Saviour  bestows,  in  answer  to  the  prayers  of 
his  people,  upon  children,  thus  in  covenant  with 
himself,  who  can  estimate  their  value?  All  ob- 
jections of  this  sort  are  equally  futile.    They 


CIRCUMCISION  AND  BAPTISM.  159 

savor  of  being  wise  above  what  is  written,  and 
lead  to  endless  difficulties  and  absurdities. 

I  may  add,  that  it  is  perilous  thus  to  reject  an 
ordinance  of  God,  and  throw  off  its  authority 
from  ourselves,  merely  because,  from  the  mode 
of  our  education,  or  our  habits  of  thinking  on 
these  subjects,  we  do  not  at  once  see  the  grounds 
of  its  propriety.  It  is  enough,  if  God  has  re-» 
quired  it,  though  the  reasons  may  not  all  be 
apparent  to  us.  And  surely,  so  far  as  the  prin- 
ciple of  this  ordinance  is  concerned,  if  God  has 
honored  it  in  any  case,  as  he  certainly  did  in  the 
case  of  infant  circumcision,  w^e  should  beware 
that  we  do  not  treat  it  lightly,  nor  reject  it  with- 
out a  Divine  warrant  to  do  so.  But  no  such 
warrant  is  to  be  found.  On  the  contrary,  the 
New  Testament  is  full  of  proof  that  the  sign  and 
seal  of  Abraham's  faith,  though  changed  in  its 
form,  still  retains  its  significancy,  and  is  to  be 
administered  to  us  and  to  our  children,  so  long 
as  we  "  walk  in  the  steps  of  the  faith  of  our  fa- 
ther Abraham,  which  he  had  being  yet  uncir-? 
cumcised."     (Rom.  4:  12.) 

Yet  there  is  a  large  class  of  professing  Chris- 
tians, in  modern  tinieSj  who  reject  the  doctrine 


160  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

of  infant  baptism,  and  whose  conscientious  scrui 
pies  we  are  bound  to  respect.  They  ask  for 
what  can  not  be  given,  a  text  of  scripture  ex- 
pressly enjoining  the  baptism  of  children.  Our 
reply  is,  that  this  demand  is  unreasonable.  The 
doctrine  in  question  is  so  well  sustained  by  such 
considerations  as  I  have  now  stated,  that  an  ex- 
press command  is  unnecessary. 

Moreover,  if  no  obligation  can  be  imposed, 
without  an  express  command,  why  do  those 
who  raise  this  objection  attend  public  worship, 
from  sabbath  to  sabbath,  as  a  thing  of  religious 
obligation?  Why  do  they  observe  the  first 
instead  of  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  as  the 
sabbath?  Why  do  they  administer  the  Lord's 
supper  to  females?  Why  do  they  pray  with 
their  children  and  families,  or  teach  them  to 
read?  There  is  not  in  all  the  scriptures  a 
text  expressly  enjoining  these  duties.  Yet 
who  doubts  that  they  are  duties?  Who  that 
embraces  the  Bible,  as  the  rule  of  his  faith,  does 
not  joyfully  yield  himself  to  the  practice  of  these 
duties,  as  matters  of  Divine  requirement,  and  of 
religious  obligation?  So  the  dedication  of  our 
children  to   God   in  baptism   may  be  a  duty, 


CIRCUMCISION  AND  BAPTISM.  161 

though  no  single  text  can  be  found,  which,  in 
so  many  words,  commands  it.  That  it  is  a 
duty,  there  are  still  other  proofs  yet  to  be  con- 
sidered. 

11 


SECTION   V. 

THE  EXAMPLE  AND  PRACTICE  OF  THE  APOSTLES  IN 
RESPECT  TO  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

In  addition  to  the  strong  proof  of  the  identity 
of  the  church  under  both  dispensations,  the  per- 
petuity of  the  covenant,  and  the  fact  that  bap- 
tism takes  the  place  of  circumcision,  we  have 
still  further  corroborative  evidence  in  favor  of 
our  belief,  from  apostolic  example  and  practice. 

Christ  and  his  apostles  taught  and  practiced 
much  as  we  might  expect,  on  the  supposition 
that  they  intended  to  authorize  the  baptism  of 
children,  as  well  as  adult  believers,  and  just  as 
we  should  not  expect,  on  the  contrary  supposi- 
tion. They  were  themselves  of  the  Jewish 
church,  by  birth  and  education.  They  knew 
that,  in  that  church,  children  were  connected 
with  their  parents  in  their  covenant  relations  to 
God;  that  they  early  received  the  sign  of  the 
everlasting  covenant;  and  that,  in  the  case  of 
proselytes,  the  children  were  baptized  with  their 
parents.     And  most  of  those  to  whom  they  min- 


APOSTOLIC  EXAMPLE.  163 

istered  in  the  beginning  of  the  gospel,  were 
also  familiar  with  these  Jewish  usages. 

What,  then,  might  have  been  expected  of 
Christ  and  his  apostles,  on  the  supposition  that 
they  intended  to  put  an  end  to  this  practice  of 
infant  baptism?  •  Not  silence,  in  respect  to  it^ 
surely  I  On  the  contrary,  they  would  have  lost 
no  opportunity  of  insisting,  that  the  ancient 
covenant  relation  of  children  and  parents  was 
now  abolished,  and  ought  no  longer  to  be  re- 
cognized in  the  rites  and  sacraments  of  the 
church.  But  they  neither  said  nor  intimated 
any  such  thing  in  a  single  instance. 

But  what  would  be  expected  of  Christ  and 
his  apostles,  on  the  supposition  that  they  intend- 
ed to  recognize  the  established  covenant  rela- 
tion of  parents  and  children,  in  the  church,  as 
perpetual?  What  would  they  be  likely  to  say 
about  the  seal  of  the  covenant?  Surely  it  would 
not  be  necessary  to  enjoin  it  in  the  case  of  the 
children  of  proselytes;  for  this  would  be  to  en* 
join  expressly  what  was  universally  practiced  in 
such  cases.  But  they  would  be  likely  often  to 
allude  to  the  covenant  relation  of  parents  and 
children  to  God,  as  a  thing  known  and  recog 


164  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

nized,  and  to  speak  of  its  duties  and  drop  ex- 
pressions which  implied  them.  They  would  be 
likely  also  often  to  baptize  households,  when 
those  at  the  head  of  them  made  profession  of 
their  faith,  and  occasionally  to  speak  of  these 
occurrences  in  a  cursory  manner,  indicating  no 
doubt  that  the  nature  and  form  of  these  transac- 
tions would  be  generally  understood  on  their 
bare  announcement  of  them,  without  explana- 
tion. And  this  we  find  is  just  the  course  which 
they  did  pursue. 

The  Saviour  applauded  the  practice  of  bring- 
ing infants  to  receive  his  blessing,  and  said, 
*'  Forbid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
God."  (Mark  10:  14.)  Again,  he  speaks  of 
little  children  as  being  received  in  his  name,  or 
as  belonging  to  him.  (Mark  9:  37,  42.)  Peter 
taught  believing  parents  that  the  promise  was  to 
them  and  their  children.  (Acts  2:  39.)  Paul 
affirms  that  "  the  blessing  of  Abraham  has  come 
on  the  Gentiles,  through  Jesus  Christ,"  (Gal.  3: 
14.)  On  another  occasion  he  denominates  the 
children  of  believing  parents  "holy;"  that  is, 
consecrated.  (1  Cor.  7:  14.)  The  whole  ex- 
pression of  the  apostle  is  as  follows,  (1  Cor.  7: 


APOSTOLIC  EXAMPLE.  166 

14) :  "  For  the  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified 
by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  sancti- 
fied by  the  husband;  else  were  your  children  un- 
clean; but  now  are  they  holy;''''  that  is,  holy  in 
an  ecclesiastical  sense;  in  other  words,  they  are 
entitled  to  baptism,  as  the  children  of  believers, 
dedicated  or  consecrated  to  God. 

This  passage  indicates  two  things;  first,  that 
no  children  but  those  of  believers  are  entitled  to 
baptism.  This  was  the  case  in  respect  to  cir- 
cumcision under  the  law.  It  was  administered 
only  to  the  children  or  wards  of  those  w^ho  pro- 
fessed the  true  religion.  All  others  were  ex- 
cluded as  unclean.  So  Christian  baptism  is  to  be 
administered  to  none  but  the  children  of  profes- 
sors of  the  true  faith.  But  we  are  here  taught, 
secondly,  that,  if  either  of  the  parents  is  a  be- 
liever and  a  professor  of  religion,  their  children 
are  entitled  to  baptism,  on  account  of  the  faith 
and  profession  of  the  believing  parent,  though 
the  other  remain  yet  an  unbeliever.  "  Now," 
says  the  apostle,  their  children  "  are  holy."  In 
accordance  with  this,  Peter  declares  (Acts  2 :  39,) 
that  the  promise  is  to  "  as  many"  [and  their 
children,]  "  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call." 


13 


166  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

Now  obedience  to  this  call  of  God  implies  a  pro- 
fession of  faith;  hence  baptism  belongs  only  to 
those  wha  profess  the  religion  of  the  gospel,  and 
their  children,  or  such  as  are  under  their  care 
and  influence  by  guardianship  or  adoption. 

Paul  also  repeatedly  baptized  households,  or 
families,  on  the  profession  of  tbe  faith  of  theix 
parents,  or  of  those  who  had  charge  of  them. 
Lydia  gave  heed  to  the  gospel,  and  she  and  her 
household*  were  baptized.  (Acts  16:  15.)  The 
jailer  believed,  and  he  and  all  his  were  baptized 
straightway.  (Acts  16:  .33.)  Paul  also  baptized 
the  hou-sehold  of  Stephanus.  (1  Cor.  1:  16.) 

Another  consideration,  which  has  an  impor- 
tant bearing  on  the  force  of  this  argument  is, 
that  a  great  number  oi  Jewish  parents  were  con- 
verted under  the  ministry  of  Christ  and    his 

*  The  editor  of  Calmet's  Dictionary  gives  no  less 
than  ffty  examples  in  proof  of  the  fact,  that  ojxoj, 
(oikos,)  here  rendered  household,  when  used  in  appli- 
cation to  persons,  denotes  a  family  of  children  in- 
cluding children  of  all  ages,  and  assures  us,  that  as 
many  as  three  hundred  instances  have  been  examined, 
and  have  proved  perfectly  satisfactory.  See  Cal.  p, 
155,  and  Kurtz,  p.  94. 


APOSTX)LIC    EXAMPLE.  ,167 

apostles.  These  were  all  "  zealous  of  the  law;" 
and  yet  we  never  hear  of  their  complaining  that 
their  children  were  deprived  of  their  interest  in 
the  covenant,  by  the  institutions  and  usages  of 
the  gospel,  or  that  they  failed  to  receive  the  seal 
of  that  covenant.  Could  this  have  been  the 
case,  if  baptism  had  not  been  administered  in 
the  place  of  circumcision,  to  the  children  of  those 
converts?  Yet  not  a  word  of  complaint  is  heard 
from  them  on  any  such  account.  It  is  morally 
certain,  therefore,  that  in  respect  to  covenant  re- 
lations and  privileges,  according  to  a  well-known 
prophecy  of  Jeremiah,  "  their  children  were  as 
aforetime."     (Jer.  30:  20.) 


SECTION   VI. 

TESTIMONY  OF  EARLY  CHRISTIANS  AND  OF  HISTORY. 
ORIGIN  OF  THE  BAPTIST  DENOMINATION.  CON- 
CLUDING REMARKS. 

The  earliest  of  the  Christian  fathers,  also,  after 

the  apostolic  age,  considered  baptism  as  standing 

in  the  place  of  circumcision.     Several  of  them 

have  spoken  expressly  on  the  subject,  making  it 

certain  that  infant  baptism  was  practiced  in  their 

times,  and  was  claimed  to  be  of  apostolic  origin 
and  authority. 

The  old  Syriac  version  of  the  New  Testament, 
the  date  of  which  is  assigned,  by  Walton  and 
others,  to  the  first  century  of  the  Christian  era, 
substitutes  the  word  children  for  oixog,  "  house- 
hold" and  "all  his,"  in  the  passages  already 
referred  to;  and  so,  in  that  very  early  version, 
the  reading  is,  "Lydia  and  her  children,'' the 
jailer  "  and  his  children,''  &c.  This  is  at  once 
a  correct  translation  of  the  original,  and  a  valu- 
able testimony,  as  to  the  understanding  of  these 
passages  in  the  very  region  where  the  apostles 


EARLY    HISTORY.  169 

labored;  and  being  given  while  some  of  them 
were  yet  alive,  it  ought  to  be  conclusive  on  this 
subject. 

So  also  Ireneus,  who  was  born  about  the  close 
of  the  first  century,  says,  '^  Infants  and  little  ones, 
and  children,  and  youth,  and  the  aged,  are  regen- 
erated to  God^'^renascuntur  in  Deum.  It  is 
plain  that  this  expression  refers  to  baptism,  for 
he  afterwards  quotes  Matt.  28:  19,  and  says,  in 
relation  to  it,  ^*  Our  Lord  gave  to  his  disciples 
this  commission  of  regenerating/^  that  is,  of 
baptizing. 

Justin  Martyr  J  also,  who  lived  in  the  first  half 
century  after  the  death  of  the  apostle  John,  says 
that  "  Infants  are  washed  with  water  in  the  name 
of  the  Father  and  Son  and  Spirit."  And  Origen, 
who  lived  within  a  hundred  years  of  the  apos- 
tolic age,  a  man  of  great  learning  and  exten- 
sive  acquaintance  with  the  churches  of  his  time, 
says,  "  Little  children  are  baptized  agreeably  to 
the  usage  of  the  church;  who  received  it  from 
the  apostles,  that  this  ordinance  should  be  ad-f 
ministered  to  infants."  The  testimony  of  others 
is  equally  explicit. 

But  if  this  is  so,  ^nd  it  was  understood  in  the 


170  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

times  nearest  the  apostles,  that  baptism  stood  in 
the  place  of  circumcision,  and  was  to  be  admin^ 
istered  to  infants,  by  apostolic  authority,  then  the 
question  about  baptizing  the  children  of  believ-^ 
ers  ought  to  be  at  an  end. 

There  is,  indeed,  no  evidence  that  the  right  of 
the  children  of  believers  to  receive  baptism  was. 
ever  denied  in  the  earlier  ages  of  the  church. 
Tertullian,  it  is  true,  adopted  the  strange  notion 
that  baptism  w^as  accompanied  with  the  remis^ 
sion  of  all  past  sins;  and  that  sins  committed 
after  baptism  w^ere  peculiarly  dangerous.  He 
therefore  advised  that  the  baptism  of  infants  who 
were  likely  to  live,  should  be  delayed,  that  it 
might  be  administered  at  a  later  period  of  life, 
and  thus  cancel  a  greater  multitude  of  sins. 
Yet  he  recognizes  the  existence  and  prevalence 
of  infant  baptism  in  his  time,  (the  third  century,) 
and  recommends  it  in  all  cases  where  the  infant 
is  not  likely  to  survive. 

Others  of  the  Christian  fathers  often  allude  to 
this  subject  and  give  abundant  testimony  to  the 
universality  of  the  practice,  and  the  prevalent 
belief  that  it  was  handed  down  from  the  apos- 
tles.    Augustine  ancj  Pelagius,  in  the  fourth 


EARLY    HISTORY.  171 

century,  both  learned  men,  in  their  long  and 
violent  disputes  about  original  sin,  affirm  and 
defend  their  belief  of  the  doctrine  of  infant  bap^ 
tism.  Pelagius  says,  "  Men  slander  me,  as  if  I 
denied  the  sacrament  of  baptism  to  infants." 
And  again,  "/wetter  heard  of  any^  not  even  the 
most  impious  heretic,  who  denied  baptism  to  iii- 
fants.^'*  And  Augustine  repeatedly  recognizes 
the  same,  and  urges  it  upon  his  opponent,  as  a 
reason  why  he  should  also  admit  original  sin, 
and  the  necessity  of  the  regeneration  of  infants, 
-which  it  is  the  design  of  baptism  to  signify  and 
represent. 

Our  best  historians,  as  Milner  and  Wall,  who 
have  investigated  this  subject  thoroughly,  assure 
us  that  they  can  find  no  account  of  any  body  of 
professing  Christians,  who  denied  baptism  to  in- 
fants, until  about  the  beginning  of  the  Protestant 
Reformation  in  the  thirteenth  century.  Then 
there  arose  a  small  sect  among  the  Waldenses, 
who  maintained  that  infants  ought  not  to  be  bap- 
tized, because  they  considered  them  incapable 
of  salvation.  The  great  mass  of  the  Waldenses 
still  held  the   doctrine   of  infant   baptism  anc^ 

*  Wall's  Hist,  of  Iiifaut  Bap,,  Vol.  1, 


172  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

practiced  it.  But  this  small  sect,  the  followers 
oi  Peter  de  Bruis,  broke  off  from  the  main,  body 
of  that  renowned  church,  and  held  that,  as  in- 
fants were  incapable  of  salvation,  the  applying 
to  them  of  the  sacramental  seal  is  an  absurdity. 
Surely  our  Baptist  brethren,  knowing  their  creed, 
will  not  wish  these  people  to  be  considered  their 
predecessors. 

Where  then  shall  we  look,  in  history,  for  the 
modern  Baptist  doctrines  on  this  subject?  It  is 
incontestibly  proved  that  baptism  was  adminis- 
tered to  the  children  of  believers  during  the 
apostolic  age,  and  that  it  continued  to  be  ad- 
ministered, in  all  subsequent  ages,  by  the  great 
body  of  the  church,  for  more  th?in  fifteen  hundred 
years.  For  the  Petrohrusians*  were  a  very 
small  sect,  and,  as  we  have  seen,  they  did  not 
reject  infant  baptism  on  the  grounds  now  urged 

*  These  Petrohrusians,  says  Dr.  Miller,  "  were  a  very 
small  fraction  of  the  great  Waldensian  body,  probably 
not  more  than  a  thii'tieth  or  fortieth  part  of  the  v^^hole. 
The  great  mass  of  the  denomination,  as  such,  declare, 
in  their  Confession  of  Faith,  and  in  various  public 
documents,  that  they  held,  and  that  their  fathers  be^r 
fore  them,  for  many  generations,  always  held,  to  iu» 
fant  baptism."— JJfi/Zer  on  Baptism, 


ANABAPTIST.  173 

by  our  Baptist  brethren  ;  and  the  very  first  body 
ofpeople,  in  the  whole  Christian  world,  who  did 
reject  it  on  these  grounds  were  a  fanatical  sect, 
called  Jlnabaptists*  who  arose  in  Germany  in 
I522.t  Here,  properly  speaking,  commenced 
the  Baptist  denomination.  Here  the  communion 
of  the  church  was  first  sundered  on  the  ground 
of  baptism.  The  Anabaptists  produced  the  sepa- 
ration, which  has  since  been  maintained  and 
extended,  as  if  it  w^ere  a  doctrine  of  godliness. 
They  have  since  been  called  Antipedohaptists,  in 
distinction  from  all  other  denominations  of  Chris- 
tians, who  are  called  Pedobaptists,  because  they 
baptize  children. 

All  the  boasting,  therefore,  of  our  Baptist 
brethren,  about  tracing  the  origin  of  their  deno- 
mination to  John  the  Baptist,  and  to  the  day  of 

*  The  word  Anabaptist  is  derived  from  ava,  {anew) 
and  [3a<n'Ti(fTr]g,  [Baptist,]  and  was  applied  to  the  sect 
referred  to,  because  they  held,  as  the  close-communion 
Baptists  now  hold,  that  persons  baptized  in  infancy 
jught  to  be  baptized  anew,  on  their  becoming  believers. 

f  It  does  not  appear  that  there  was  any  congrega- 
tion of  Anabaptists  in  England,  until  about  1640.  See 
Toman's  Elements,  and  Kurtz  on  Baptism. 


174  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

Pentecost,  is  mere  declamation.  Neither  scrip- 
ture nor  history  furnishes  the  slightest  evidence  in 
support  of  such  a  claim.  The  fact  is  susceptible 
of  the  clearest  proof,  that  they  are  a  modern  sect. 
This,  however,  would  be  no  objection,  and  no 
ground  of  reproach,  if  their  positions  were  true, 
and  supported  by  the  word  of  God.  "  To  the 
law"  and  to  the  testimony:  if  they  speak  not  ac- 
cording to  this  word,  it  is  because  there  is  no 
light  in  them."     (Isa.  8:  20.) 

I  would  not  urge,  therefore,  with  too  much 
confidence,  the  authority  of  history  and  of  uni- 
versal practice  in  the  church,  since  the  age  of 
the  apostles.  I  admit  that,  in  all  the  ages  since 
the  Saviour's  owm  time,  there  have  been  errors 
mingled  with  truth,  in  the  church,  almost  every 
where.  And  in  respect  to  matters  of  mere  hu- 
man authority  and  usage,  the  Baptists  have  as 
good  a  right  to  their  opinions,  as  we  have  to 
ours.  But  I  think,  the  evidence  of  both  scrip- 
ture Emd  history,  which  we  have  now  considered, 
of  the  departure  of  the  close-communion  Baptists 
from  the  faith  and  practice  of  the  apostles  on  this 
subject,  warns  both  them  and  us  to  "  see  and  ask 
for  the  old  paths,  where  is  the  good  way,  and 


COiNCLUDING  REMARKS.  175 

walk  therein,  that  we  may  find  rest  to  our  souls" 
— rest  in  the  everlasting  covenant  of  God  with 
his  people. 

By  the  terms  of  that  covenant,  every  believing 
parent  is  bound  to  dedicate  his  children  to  God 
in  baptism,  as  the  sign  and  seal  of  his  faith. 
And  it  is  at  our  peril  and  the  peril  of  our  chil- 
dren, that  we  neglect  it.  The  promise  is  only 
to  "  them  that  love  him  and  keep  his  command- 
ments." This  is  one  of  his  commandments;  and 
surely  the  blessing  of  Abraham  may  be  expected 
to  come  upon  us,  in  all  the  fulness  of  the  gospel, 
if  we  walk  in  the  steps  of  his  faith,  "  who  is  the 
father  of  us  all,"  and  let  there  be  "  no  schism  in 
the  body."  "  For  by  one  Spirit,  are  we  all 
baptized  into  one  body."  (1  Cor.  12:  13,  25.) 
This  is  spiritual  baptism,  of  which  every  one,  who 
is  truly  regenerated,  is  a  partaker.  If,  there- 
fore, we  accompany  our  external  baptism,  with 
pledges,  which  bind  us  to  division  and  separation 
from  the  great  mass  of  our  brethren  of  the  like 
precious  faith,  and  that  too  on  questions  of  mere 
"  doubtful  disputation,"  as  the  Baptist  arguments 
on  the  mode  and  subjects  of  baptism  certainly 
are,  instead  of  binding  ourselves,  in  the  recep- 


176  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

tion  of  this  ordinance,  to  union  and  communion 
with  all  the  faithful  in  Christ  Jesus,  we  give  to 
our  baptism  a  meaning,  which  it  has  not  in  the 
scriptures.  It  is  there  intended  to  represent  that 
spiritual  influence,  by  which  "  we  are  all  6ap- 
tized  into  one  body,"  "  the  body  of  Christ,"  the 
church  universal.  (1  Cor.  12:  27.)  For  "  there 
is  one  body,  and  one  Spirit,  even  as  ye  are 
called  in  one  hope  of  your  calling  ;  One  Lord, 
one  faith,  one  baptism,  [spiritual,]  one  God  and 
Father  of  all,  who  is  above  all,  and  through  all, 
and  in  you  all."     (Eph.  4:  4,  5,  6.) 

Let  the  reader  understand,  that  the  "  one  bap- 
tism," here  spoken  of,  is  spiritual.  It  is  that  by 
which,  if  he  is  truly  regenerated,  he  is  "  baptized 
into  one  hody^^  with  all  others  who  are  regene- 
rated; and  God  has  not  only  given  him  no  right, 
but  expressly  forbids  him,  to  affix  to  the  exter- 
nal sign  and  seal  of  his  spiritual  baptism,  volun- 
tary pledges  to  a  single  branch  of  "  the  body  of 
Christ,"  which  bind  him  to  abstain  from  com- 
munion with  all  the  other  branches  or  members. 
If  he  makes  a  worthy  profession  of  religion,  he 
professes  to  be  a  member  "  in  particular"  of  the 
whole  body  of  Christ,  and  is  not  at  liberty,  by 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS.  177 

the  conditions  of  his  baptism,  either  as  to  the 
mode  or  the  time  of  its  administration,  to  say  to 
any  of  the  other  members,  "  I  have  no  need  of 
you."  But  he  is  bound  to  receive  them  as 
brethren,  in  all  acts  of  communion  and  fellow- 
ship. "  And  whoso  shall  receive  one  such  little 
child  in  my  name,"  says  the  Saviour,  "receiveth 
me."  (Matt.  18:  5.) 
12 


14 


APPENDIX; 

CONCERNING  THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


The  following  is  from  the  learned  work  more  than 
once  referred  to  in  the  preceding  treatise,  entitled, 
"  Apostolic  Baptism :  Facts  and  Evidences  on  the  Subjects 
and  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism ;  by  C  Taylor,  Editor 
of  Calmefs  Dictionary  of  the  Bible.''^ 

Before  we  can  discuss  a  theological  subject,  we 
must  clear  away  those  pei-versions  in  which  industiious 
ignorance  and  criminal  presumption  involve  it.  The 
prmcipal  of  these  on  the  present  topic  is  the  folloAving 
proposition—"  Christian  Baptism  is  neither  more  nor 
less  than  an  immersion  of  the  whole  body  in  water, 
solemnly  performed  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

I  answer — the  bad  Latin  term.  Immersion,  is  a  very 
convenient  cover  for  a  very  delusive  proposition; 
especially  when  used  in  an  unlimited,  mifixed,  or  un- 
qualified sense.     *     *     *     * 

A  man  is  immersed  who  stands  on  his  toes  or  up  to 
his  knees  in  water ;  he  also  is  immersed,  Baptists  say, 
over  whose  head  the  water  flows.  If  the  term  then 
be  so  indeterminate,  it  were  chasing  an  ignis  fatuus  to 
follow  it,  when  facts  are  in  question;  it  eludes  the 
test  of  Scripture,  reason,  and  common  sense. 

Instead  therefore,  of  bewildering  ourselves  in  at- 
tempting to  trace  the  strict  use  of  a  woi'd  notoriously 
uncertain  in  its  application  and  import,  let  us  examine 


180  APPENDIX. 

the  thing  it  should  represent.  Instead  of  poring  over 
bad  Latin,  let  us  endeavor  to  apply  good  English. 
Translate  the  term  into  our  mother  tongue.  To  put 
imder  water  the  whole  body,  is  to  plunge  it. — ^Now 
mai'k  the  proposition : — "  Christian  Baptism  is  neither 
mo]  e  nor  less  than  plunging  the  whole  body,  in  the 
name,  &c."  This  affords  a  precise  idea,  that  may 
easily  be  exammed.  Does  the  original  Greek  word 
baptize,  wherever  it  occurs  in  Scripture,  denote  plung- 
ing'?— Let  us  try  this  by  applying  the  term  to  the  lead- 
ing passages. 

Ba'Trrw. — In  the  New  Testament  the  verb  bapto  oc- 
cm-s  thrice : — 

Luke  xvi.  24. — Send  Lazarus  that  he  may  dip  the 
tip  of  his  finger; — ^that  he  may  plunge  the  tip  of  his 
finger. 

John  xiii.  20. — ^He  to  whom  I  shall  give  a  sop  when 
I  have  dipped  it ; — a  sop  when  I  have  plunged  it. 

Rev.  xix.  13. — His  name  is  called  the  Word  of 
God : — he  was  clothed  in  a  vesture  dipped  in  blood ; — 
clothed  in  a  vesture  plunged  in  blood. 

Ef/./Sa'Trrw. — The  compound  verb  embapto  is  used 
three  times: — 

Matthew  xx\'i.  23. — ^He  that  dippeth  his  hand  with 
me  in  the  dish ; — he  that  plungeth  his  hand  with  me 
in  the  dish. 

Mark  xiv.  20. — One  of  the  twelve  that  dippeth  with 
me  in  the  dish; — one  of  the  twelve  that  plungeth 
with  me  in  the  dish. 

John  xiii.  26. — ^He  it  is  to  whom  I  shall  give  a  sop, 
when  I  have  dipped  it ;  and  when  he  had  dipped  the 
sop ; — he  it  is  to  whom  I  shall  give  a  sop  when  I  have 
plunged  it;  and  when  he  had  plunged  the  sop. 

Now,  does  language  tolerate  the  expression  "to 
plunge  the  tip  of  a  finger?"  does  Christianity  tolerate 
the  notion  of  our  Lord  Jesus  "wearing  a  garment 
plunged  in  blood  ?"  does  common  decency  tolerate  the 
plunging  of  two  hands  in  the  same  dish  at  the  same 
time? 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  181 

Ba.m'TKfiiog. — The  noun  haptismos  occurs  four  times : 

Mark  vii.  4,  8.  The  ivashing  of  cups  and  pots,  and 
of  brazen  vessels,  and  tables; — the  plunging  of  cups 
and  pots,  and  of  brazen  vessels,  and  tables. 

Heb.  vi.  2. — The  foundation  of  the  doctrine  of  bap- 
tisms ; — doctrine  of  plungings. 

Heb.  ix.  10. — Sei'\ices,  in  meats  and  di-inks,  and 
divers  washings ; — divers  plungings. 

These  passages  imply  very  diflFerent  modes  of  per- 
forming that  action  which  the  sacred  A\Titer  calls  lap- 
tism;  and  their  order  is  favorable  to  the  eliciting  of 
conclusive  evidence  from  their  connection  and  tenor. 

Whoever  has  seen  cups  and  pots  washed  at  a  pump, 
may  judge  whether  they  were  necessarily  plunged. 
Whoever  considers  what  cumbersome  pieces  of  furni- 
ture these  tables  were— ^^een  or  twenty  feet  long,  by 
four  feet  broad,  and  about  four  feet  high — may  judge 
whether  they  were  plunged,  after  every  meal  taken 
upon  them.  Why  does  the  sacred  writer  describe 
the  doctrine  of  baptisms,  in  the  plural,  as  one  of  the 
foundations  of  Christianity,  if  there  were  only  one 
mode  of  baptism,  that  by  plunging  ?  The  same  \^Titer 
says  exjDressly,  that  under  the  laAV  there  were  divers 
kinds  of  baptisms : — and  fi-om  the  law  itself,  we  know 
that  by  far  the  greater  part  of  them  were  not  plungings  : 
the  word  therefore  cannot  possibly  be  restricted  to 
that  import. 

If  then  the  word  baptism  be  not  resti-icted  in  Scripture 
to  that  import,  but  is  used  in  senses  distinct  fi-om  that 
of  plunging,  in  reference  to  things,  let  us  examine  its 
import  m  reference  to  persons.  What  think  you  of  the 
baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost?  This  was  not  a  meta- 
phorical or  figurative  baptism.  It  was  a  real  and  in 
disputable  subject  of  the  senses  seen  by  John  the  Bap- 
tist, by  the  Apostles,  in  company  of  the  hundred  and 
twenty,  as  is  generally  thought,  and  by  Peter  with  his 
brethren,  in  the  mstance  of  Cornelius ;  and  not  less 
conspicuous  than  at  the  Jordan.  It  was  the  subject 
of  John  Baptist's  repeated  prediction;  Mat.  iii.  11; 


182  APPENDIX. 

Mark  i.  8 ;  Luke  iii.  16 :  "  He  shall  haptize  5^ou  with  the 
Holy  Ghost."  It  was  also  the  subject  of  our  LordV 
repeated  prediction;  Luke  xxiv.  49:  "I  send  the  pro 
mise  of  my  Father  upon  you — ye  shall  be  endued 
with  power  from  on  Ai^A."  Acts  i.  5 :  "  Ye  shall  be 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  not  many  days  hence.' 
— Acts  ii.  2 :  "  And  suddenly  there  came  from  heaven 
and  APPEARED  unto  them  cloven  tongues,  like  as  of  fire 
and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them,  and  they  were  all  tillecl 
with  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  same  occured  in  the  case 
of  Cornelius :  Acts  x.  44 ;  for  Peter  says,  "  the  Holy 
Ghost  FELL  on  them,  as  on  us  at  the  beginning.''^  Act? 
xi.  XV :  8 :  "  God....gave  them  the  Holy  Ghost,  even  as 
he  did  unto  us,  and  put  no  difference  between  them 
and  us,  purifying  their  hearts  by  faith." 

Two  words  are  employed  to  express  this  similitude ; 
one  of  which,  wtf-TTSp,  denotes  a  strict  and  exact  simili- 
tude, likeness,  or  conformity. 

The  manner  in  which  this  baptism  was  conferred  or 
administered  was  not  only  distinct  from  plunging,  but 
it  Avas  absolutely  inconsistent  with  that  action — 
Plunging  was  an  impossibility  in  the  administration 
of  this  baptism. 

It  is  proper  to  adduce  those  synonymous  words  which 
the  sacred  Spirit  has  graciously  thought  fit  to  emjjloy, 
for  the  purpose  of  fixing  the  sense  of  that  word  which 
is  the  immediate  subject  of  investigation.  We  waive 
all  reference  to  critics  and  commentators,  however 
numerous,  and  however  positive.  We  depend  on  the 
New  Testament  alone — on  those  wi*iters,  under  the 
immediate  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  Avere 
his  instruments  in  explaining  spu'itual  things  by  spirit- 
ual words. 

This  test  is  a  sort  of  experimentum  crucis  to  false  pro- 
positions. It  has  detected  many.  Let  us  try  it  iii  the 
case  before  us. 

Luke  xxiv.  49. — Shall  send  the  Holy  Ghost — from 
ON  high. 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  183 

I  saw  the  Spirit  descending  from  heaven  like  a 
dove,  and  it  abode  upon  him;  John  i.  32. 

This  is  what  was  spoken — I  will  pour  out  of  my 
Spirit ;  Acts  ii.  2. 

Jesus  having  received  of  the  Father  the  promise  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  has  shed  forth  this  which  ye  now 
see  and  hear;  Acts  ii.  35. 

Suddenly  there  came  from  heaven,  and  appeared 
UNTO  THEM  clovcn  tougues ;  Acts  ii.  2,  17. 

That  they  might  receive  the  Holy  Ghost;  for  as  yet 
he  was  fallen  upon  none  of  them;  Acts  viii.  16. 

Ananias  put  his  hands  on  Paul,  that  he  might  be 
filed  with  the  Holy  Ghost ;  Acts  ix.  17. 

God  ANOINTED  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  Acts  x.  38. 

Acts  X.  44. — The  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all. 

Acts  xj.  15. — The  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them,  even 
as  on  us  at  the  beginning. 

Acts  X.  45. — They  of  the  circumcision  were  aston- 
ished, because  on  the  Gentiles  was  poured  out  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

Acts  XV.  8. — Giving  them  the  Holy  Ghost,  even  as 
unto  us. 

Titus  iii.  6.— The  Holy  Ghost;  which  he  shed  on 
us  abundantly. 

1  Peter  i.  12. — The  Holy  Ghost  sent  down  from 
heaven. 

Eph.  i.  13. — Sealed  ^N\th  the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise. 

These  passages  give  us  as  synonymous  with  baptize  : 

Sending  down;  Coming;  Giving;  Falling;  Shed- 
ding ;  Pouring ;  Sitting  or  Abiding ;  Anointing ;  Fill- 
ing; and  Sealing. 

In  all  these  synonymous  words,  there  is  not  one  that 
raises  the  idea  of  plunging,  or  even  approaches  to  it. 
Yet  they  all  refer  to  baptism.  "  The  Apostles  shall  be 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,"  is  the  prediction ;  the 
Holy  Ghost  was  poured  out  upon  them,  is  the  ac- 
complishment. Even  Paul  who  was  then  absent 
speaks  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  being  shed  on  him 


184  APPENDIX. 

doubtless  at  his  baptism ;  Acts  ix.  ]  7.  Perhaps,  how- 
ever, the  instance  of  our  Lord  is  the  most  complete, 
of  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  in  that  we  have  the 
very  height  of  certainty,  there  was  no  plunging,  nor 
any  thing  like  it :  although  almost  all  the  synonyms 
meet  in  his  person ; — as  descending,  coming,  filling, 

ANOINTING,  SITTING  Or  ABIDING  aild  SEALING. 

We  are  now  advanced  to  the  question,  "  Did  baptism 
by  water  resemble  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost  ? — and 
in  what?"  That  there  must  have  been  some  resem- 
blance is  certain ;  and  the  resemblance  must  have  been 
striking ;  for  the  Apostle  Peter,  seeing  the  Holy  Ghost 
poured  out  on  the  company  at  Cornelius's,  immedi- 
ately recollected  an  allusion  to  John's  baptism  by 
water.  The  Lord  said,  "John  baptized  with  water; 
but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  If  there 
were  no  resemblance  between  the  two  baptisms,  how 
came  the  Apostle's  memory  to  be  refreshed  with  what 
he  saw  ?  How  came  he  to  lay  a  stress  on  his  recol- 
lection, thus  raised  to  exercise  ?  This  made  so  stong 
an  impression  on  his  mind,  that  he  adverts  to  it  a  long 
while  afterwards.  Act  xv.  8.  If  it  be  asked  Avhat  he 
did  see  ?  I  answer,  he  saw  the  pouring  doivn  of  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  for  this  is  the  term  expressly  used  in  the 
history. 

Try  both  these  h-reconcilable  propositions  by  the 
substitution  of  their  synonyms.  "  John  plunges  you  in 
water;  but  ye  shall  J)e  plunged  in  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Shocking  abuse  of  language,  and  principle!  Try  the 
other :  "  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  be  poured  upon  you, 
shed  upon  you,  fall  upon  you,  &c. ;  as  John  poui'S 
water,  sheds  water,  lets  fall  water  &c.,  upon  you." 
What  is  there  offensive  in  this?  What  is  there  con- 
trary to  fact  ?  What  to  decency  ?  What  to  the  ana- 
logy of  faith  ?  What  to  the  analogy  of  grammar  and 
language  ?  Even  that  seemingly  inappropriate  term, 
anointmg,  presei'ves  the  action  though  it  changes  the 
fluid. 


